Game Settings Discussion Thread

I think you're doing the right thing, Sommer. Let's get the rules over with so we can get the game started and at least focus the antagonism down to "We want to kick Team CFC's arses" instead of "We want to kick Sommerswerd and 2metra's arses in flamewars". The public thread is getting more and more volatile every day now. You're doing your best to defend yourself, 2metra, but at this point I think the best thing is to just try to ignore it altogether and let their attacks stand unanswered while we try to get the rules accepted and then the game started. :)
 
I really think Dave's suggestion here is the correct play. Thanks Dave:) I will do that now. Here is something that I thought about that maybe some of you agree with (echoing Caledorn's point above):

1. We have already accomplished the 'head fake/bait' of "Look! Look! Look!:wavey: Over-here! Over-here!:bounce: CFC is going hard-line EE!:run: Be afraid be very afraid!:scared:. I think the other teams have bitten down so hard on that bait, that we will have much less work to keep them distracted by that going forward. I think their irrational fear will reap hefty dividends for us in the game (at least I hope it will;)). I don't know that me continuing to trumpet the merits of anything other teams see as EE related will make them anymore convinced to be scared of our supposed EE.

2. cavscout made a good point a while back that there is a fine line between getting prople to fear you/respect that you are no pushover and coming off as a jerk/annoying. I think that I for one have pushed that wagon all the way to the line and maybe over it a little:mischief: dont you? So I think it is time for me to just keep a low profile, and hopefully get the game started.
 
Should we name someone who has not taken part in the nasty side of the argument as an official spokesperson for the rest of the ruleset finalizing? Hopefully that would lessen the amount of ad-hominems and, name calling and general unpolitness a bit. I remember at least Tobias volunteering for the job earlier. I think he could be a good person to see this discussion to an end (if he has time from the app development, that is).
 
I did, and I do have time, and I think we also ironed out a little misunderstanding about what my intentions were when I called for the heated discussion to cease.

There have been others from our team too trying to calm things a little. I think we'd do OK with someone with less history.

Anyway, we need to establish a baseline for what we can accept. RB is drafting something now, it would be good to answer that proposal quickly.
 
OK, the new proposal is up.

I replied that I personally don't like restricting gifting of units in wartime such that the giver and receiver of the units must both be at war with the receiver's enemy.

I'll copy/paste it here, so we can discuss privately.
 
Rule Set Layout
Preamble
Rule Infringing
In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
In Game Actions (sequential game items)
Out of Game Actions
Administration


Preamble
We the undersigned, celebrating the game that is Civ IV have gathered together to play ISDG 2012 in the hope of _____. We collectively agree to ______ etc.

We also acknowledge that the preamble is not a rule and is merely a representations of our intent and hopes.

01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

b. When an allegation of rule infringement has been leveled at one or more teams by one or more teams, the game will be paused.

c. Each side of the alleged rule infringement will appoint a spokesperson. 'Prosecutor' for the alleging team or teams, 'Defender' for the alleged rule infringer.

c. Evidence of alleged rule infringement will be collected and forwarded to the Game Admin together with any accompanying explanatory text by the Prosecutor.

d. The Game Admin will forward this information to the Defender and ask for feedback.

e. Upon receiving feedback (or after a reasonable amount of time at the Game Admin's discretion), the Game Admin will rule on the alleged infringement, determine the penalty (if any), the resolution (if any) and those determinations will be acted upon.

f. All rulings under this rule by the Game Admin are final.

02. In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
a. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

b. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

c. Unit Gifting, Unlock Building - Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for the Heroic Epic is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for West Point is not allowed.

d. Unit Gifting, Other - Gifting units to a team currently at war with another team is not allowed unless the giftee is also at war with the other team.

e. Bugs and Exploits - The use of any bug or exploit is not allowed. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug or exploit rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug or exploit.

f. In-Game Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any team encountering a paused game should consult the CFC based turn-tracker thread. If a team has not requested a pause in that thread, the game may be unpaused.

g. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.

03. In Game Actions (sequential game items)
This section left blank

04. Out of Game Actions
a. Team Espionage - All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
Non-exhaustive list of example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Pre In-Game Contact - Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed. Non-exhaustive list of example: meeting privately to discuss in-game actions, game-related deals, in-game agreements, etc.). Note that teams meeting to discuss rules, ramifications of the impact of votes or rules are allowed.

d. Game Pause Requests - Any team may request a pause by posting in the CFC turn-tracker thread. The purpose of the pause must be included in the pause request.

e. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.

05 - Administration
a. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

b. Victory - The winner of the game is the first team recognized as winner by in-game victory dialog.

c. Defeated Teams - Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

e. Voting - All votes during the game require unanimous agreement by all teams. If teams cannot reach unanimous agreement the decision will be decided by the game administrator.

f. Game Reloads - All game reloads will trigger an automatic game pause (game admin will post such in game pause thread) for a minimum of 24 hours or until each team that logged in to the game after the reload point has stated in the game pause thread that they are ready to continue.
 
On 02.d, My personal preference is to omit the rule.

On 04.d, maybe the "wall" on the APT mod website should be offered as an alternative way to post the pause notice. This sends an email to the registered IDs for each civ, and hopefully it should be up when CFC is down, and vice versa.

I like the addition of 05.f.

The only issue here for me is 02.d, so if you have opinions on that please post.

NinjaEdit: I misread 02.d -- the intent is to prevent Team A from giving its units to Team C, to preserve them when they would be destroyed by B. That's not so bad...
 
My initial thoughts are that though the contents seem to be OK, it seems quite over engineered and unnecessarily long. One of main points of CFC ruleset was to minimize the amount of required rules.

BTW, 02.d can still lead to problematic situations. E.g. suppose A is in war with B and C is in war with D but no other wars are on currently. If I understand the rule correctly any unit gifting between the teams would be prohibited. Maybe this could be reworked to better adhere the preceived problem. For example the rule could say be more in line of: "Gifting wounded units away in the wartime is not allowed." Now, off to work.
 
I wish 2d could be more specific to the unit destruction aversion situation. I like the backstabbing play you outlined in the public forum thread. I also noticed with a good deal of pleasure that there is no espionage restriction in there rules. Well done, all.

All in all, I am quite pleased with this ruleset. 'Cept 2d.
 
They dealt with the espionage issue by leaving out section 3 entirely. I'm not so vain to think they're leaving that for later because I suggested doing that to move forward, but... ;)

The length or number of rules is immaterial. The important thing is level of detail, and on that score both teams are proposing similar things, aside from 2d. If anything, the RB ruleset is more lenient, as it completely leaves out specifications of pause duration etc.

On 2d, I clearly see the problem now. A at war with B, C at war with D. A and C are allies, B and D may not be. C should not have to declare war on B to receive units from A. A could even be winning vs. B, but they'd be prevented from helping their friends. So in this case it must either be more specific (gifting when losing, to try to impede the victor from spoils).
 
I'm not so vain to think they're leaving that for later because I suggested doing that to move forward, but... ;)
:lol:I'm glad you mentioned that Dave, cause I was thinking... Why are they wasting time talking about all this non-controversial BS?:confused: everyone knows there's only one issue, the 2nd move nerf... Why don't they just get to it? I think its also possible that the goal is to "butter us up" with discussion of the non-controversial stuff (ie everything except the 2nd position nerf) to get us acclamated to nodding our heads yes to everything and then re-introduce essentially the same restriction on 2nd move. By then hopefully everyone will have re-accepted their ruleset as the 'standard' and thus their 2nd move nerf will go over more smoothly.:rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm not saying anything publicly, but this whole discussion reminds me of direct sales... Where you talk about everything except price and get the mark (customer) to really like what you're selling and then you get to the price...:mischief:
 
Oh boy, now we have at least one team (UCiv) translating and voting on our ruleset that r_rolo posted, and a simultaneous discussion ongoing about Ruff's ruleset.

I must admit, I have very little interest in the exact rules so haven't been as active in this debate*. I just want to see this game started as quickly as possible. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to get all the teams on the same page here? At least discussing the same ruleset would be a good start!


*I know how important a good ruleset is though, and really appreciate everyone's efforts on this front. That's why I helped translate to Spanish so we could keep this moving.
 
I would advise we keep quiet publicly about it (at least I should) and let the votes fall where they may. Any chatter by us is going to come off as a hard sell which we DO NOT want right?

I have no objection to anyone else pushing things along on the team's behalf (as has been suggested earlier), but I am truly concerned that any noise out of CFC right now will just plunge us back into stalemateland:(.
 
Oh boy, now we have at least one team (UCiv) translating and voting on our ruleset that r_rolo posted, and a simultaneous discussion ongoing about Ruff's ruleset.
Yea I just read that... It seems ruff couldn't resist making a little backhanded accusation in there... ie, that I posted our ruleset in response to his post that RB was working on a ruleset.:rolleyes: (Saying "I'm assuming this is just some (suspicious) coincidence" is the same as an accusation IMO :()

Anyway, don't worry I'm keeping my mouth shut about it:smug: (publicly anyway). But for reference, here is the first time IIRC that I mentioned posting our ruleset for a vote/approval (not to mention waaay, back when others suggested posting it) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11593749&postcount=193 And here is where I told everyone I was sending it to the admin for him to post it http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11604132&postcount=197

Note that both are before ruff said anything about RB posting a revised ruleset or cooperating with our suggestion for any team who wanted to post a ruleset. Last we heard, our suggestion was "horrifying", "wasteful", "needlesly bureaucratic", "insane" etc... I didn't notice ruff's post until well after I PMed r_rolo1, and even then, I didn't go comparing date stamps...
 
Maybe tobiasn can post in r_rolo's thread that we support continuing discussion of the ruleset that Ruff proposed. Then we can finalize our 2d revision ASAP and post our vote to accept the ruleset with our revision.

It might also be good to post our suggestion for section "03. In Game Actions (sequential game items)" that can be "incorporated" into the version that will be voted on.

Again, my main interest is getting the game started. If anyone thinks these actions might result in a ruleset that disadvantages us, then please disregard my suggestions.
 
Yea I just read that... It seems ruff couldn't resist making a little backhanded accusation in there... ie, that I posted our ruleset in response to his post that RB was working on a ruleset.:rolleyes: (Saying "I'm assuming this is just some (suspicious) coincidence" is the same as an accusation IMO :()

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. The time difference between his post and r_rolo1's was just a few minutes, iirc. How does he think that you saw his post, thought up a devious plan, sent r_rolo our ruleset, and got him to post it in that time???
 
Back
Top Bottom