Initiative Proposal: Illegally Obtained Information Act

[Provolution]

Having the rule puts it in writing that you don't post about these incidents.


What mentality is that? That we don't discuss the results of illegal moves? If it's something else, don't forget the things you've heard privately in the recent past. My motivation is preserving a DG rule which is so basic it shouldn't have even needed to be stated.



To paraphrase the content and tone of the discussion.

Official: I'm going to do A, B, and C this turnchat
Citizen 1: I think you should also do D
Official: No there are no plans for that, trust me
Citizen 2: Really, if we don't do D it's dangerous
Official: No it really isn't.
Citizen 1,2,3,4: Explain why it isn't dangerous.
Official: All will be good.
Citizens: Huh? how is that an answer.
Official: Eventually you will understand.
Citizen 4: You got input from several people that they want D and all you do is ignore them.
Official: I'm in charge, I don't need to listen to anyone.
Citizen 4: OK then I guess you'll listen to a poll.

(*) I anticipate an argument that the italics was never said. It wasn't said, it was in the tone.

The demogame needed that poll, at that time, because that tone is never OK no matter what the subject. Even an answer of "no, and here's why" would have sufficed, but I will always respond to stonewalling in the same manner.

You are right, I should have been nicer. Many should have been nicer. And being an official does not mean you should get much less respect. The same applied to Grant2004, that initialized the hostilities. Stonewalling go all directions. You just happened to pick sides for historical reasons. I found the tone and wording in those questions aggressive and not willing to read what the plan actually planned to do. There was a mob movement asking for the kill of the German Longbowman, and some players whipped up enough atmosphere to let the poll go through. In fact, it was more of whipping up a mood, a lynching mood, than about considering the river penalty and plan around that.

And because the mood was so strong, someone tried to cover up that the river penalty still was in place. Conroe concluded that. This very initiative is made to make such cover-ups commonplace, when someone tries to hide over the knowledge of a game mechanic.

Because you wanted to kill that German Longbowman so bad, because of principle, not because of it being a particularly good game move, you did what you did. Especially when you said you would poll this kill to 2010 and onwards, showed what you really felt about this case. You wanted to make a show of force, and you indeed did that.

Someone argued the Longbowman would enter the city and bypass the intended screen (if you look closely, I had to fight hard for that) and locate in the city as garrison, and I answered that the AI was not that smart, simply put. A human would have done that, the Civ4 AI does not send and add reinforcements like that. Ask Jon Shafner about that (Firaxis developer).

If you look in the questions formed in that thread leading up to the siege in Berlin, most of these where emotional, not researched and so on. Most of these were about making a strong statement, and put me in place.

Now we have come to this proposal, which is all about continuing in the same spirit as that poll came about. To show force, to show power, but not to make a better game. This proposal use Joe Harkers move as an "illegal move", even though all he did was to move one tile down to see if there was a different defense bonus, and it was.

This entire circus has been about hiding the fact that there was indeed a river penalty, and this proposal is about to hide the historical fact that pressing through the ignoring of the river penalty was a bad idea. This proposal is also about creating future controls that fits a gaming style that denies the challenging of lousy research even at the preturn stage. What Joe Harker did was practically pre-turn. He broke the "holy seal" by playing the turn, but nothing happened that really gave anything away. We saw no new units, no change of balance of power took place and no new information was gained, except the thing I already calculated into the plan, the loathed river-penalty.

So I would say no to this proposal, as long as it doesn't allow for challenging lousy research and for censoring debates based on known game rules. I would also vote no, since this proposal is nothing but an echo of a totalitarian culture.

 

[DaveShack]

While I think the proposal to be honest and fair, I also question myself about
its efficiency and way to be carried out. Just pretend:

There is a discussion if city A, with x hammers, should or not try to build an
Wounder.
I open the save, play by myself a lot of turns and post:
If you try you will succeed/If you try you will be beaten by y hammers.

You read my post. How can you ignore the information?

How can all the players, but me, to decide if yes or no go to the Wonder and
pretend/try/whatever you like, not to use the illegal information?

It looks all that can be done is to decide go on or not with the game and,
obviously, to ban the culprit.

Not all illegality can face voidness just because it is not possible.

Best regards,

Of course thoughts cannot be controlled, but actions can be governed by rules. If we assume that relatively few people see the information before it is reported and deleted, then the ones who did see it have a choice to make. They can continue discussing it, or they can leave it out of discussions and allow the game to proceed with its natural course as though the information was never there. This is a choice people can make even if it is certain that everyone saw the information. Even if the information does affect the decision, that effect should be private in each person's thoughts, not disseminated to potentially corrupt the thoughts of those who didn't see it.

BTW this is extremely common in American law. I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, but juries are often instructed to ignore some fact. I was on a jury for a trial where the defendant was absent from the trial. Every day, at the beginning of the trial, after lunch, and before going home the judge instructed the jury that the defendant had a perfect right to choose to be absent from the trial, and we were not to consider her absence as evidence of guilt. It was not until the end, after the verdict was given, that we found out for sure that she had jumped bail and disappeared. In deliberations we did our honorable duty, not mentioning or discussing why she wasn't at the trial.

That's all I ask here, is for a rule that says if you see something illegal you should report it and never discuss it.

 

[DaveShack]

So I would say no to this proposal, as long as it doesn't allow for challenging lousy research and for censoring debates based on known game rules. I would also vote no, since this proposal is nothing but an echo of a totalitarian culture.

A debate on the experimental situation, without mention of opening the save and moving our keshik to calculate the odds, would have been perfectly fine.

The unforgivable act was making a poll on that keshik move. (Edit: I should add here that asking the citizens to decide does not bother me. I'm doing that right now, debating and polling whether we want to spell out that you can't repeat the info.) Making that poll was not illegal at the time, so nothing could be done about it, but it was a violation of a principle which is older than the demogame itself, dating back to when there were only SG's. One SG team member doesn't open the save and try out some moves and then tell another team member how to play the turns.

So yes, this proposal is an echo of a culture. It is not a totalitarian culture, it's a pervasive gaming culture. We just need a reminder, and to pledge to ourselves that we want to keep that culture and not abandon it.

I can see a response that SG players don't reload. I agree, if player 1 has the save and misplays, he continues on and lives with the result. This proposal does not change that. We have another additional rule in the DG that says play is only valid during a sanctioned session. Early play can be done, with permission of the people. Look at Methos's turns, he said in advance, I will play some preturn if there are no objections. That's getting permission to play, something which was not done in the infamous Keshik move. If a mistake were made in a sanctioned preturn, then it would not be illegal and we would live with the result.

 

[Provolution]

I agree there DS, we could all learn something from Methos.

 

[Methos]

So many German Longbowmen!

Yes, I was beginning to wonder if it was a bug and thought about checking my own avatar to make sure.

Another item that should be added and discussed is in regards to the illegal information for those who actually saw it. I'm not talking about the one who did the illegal act, but those who see the information prior to a moderator removing it. As I recall that was also a big problem where some players continued to argue based off the info. It doesn't matter if it was false, or if someone could have figured it out another way, it should IMO still not be allowed.

The way I see it is that if something is found out illegally (by our rules) than that action cannot be used no matter what, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if someone else figured it out legally, if they post the legal information after the illegal information was posted, it cannot be used. Yes, this forces our hand, but it should also help others from doing illegal things.

 

[fed1943]

You right, DaveShack,you right. Afterall, what I said means nothing better can
be done while you said we do our best. The same thing.
The instruction you got from the judge was an attempt of voidness (like when
a buy and sell is voided and the original properties returned; but,sadly, we cannot undo a murder, or a lot of things.).
But,no; your words make me remind a lot of things, some of them almost half
a century old. I stop now.
Best regards,

 

[Provolution]

Yes, I was beginning to wonder if it was a bug and thought about checking my own avatar to make sure.

Another item that should be added and discussed is in regards to the illegal information for those who actually saw it. I'm not talking about the one who did the illegal act, but those who see the information prior to a moderator removing it. As I recall that was also a big problem where some players continued to argue based off the info. It doesn't matter if it was false, or if someone could have figured it out another way, it should IMO still not be allowed.

The way I see it is that if something is found out illegally (by our rules) than that action cannot be used no matter what, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if someone else figured it out legally, if they post the legal information after the illegal information was posted, it cannot be used. Yes, this forces our hand, but it should also help others from doing illegal things.

We should rather have a clause, that if the DP does play 2-3 moves without scheduling the moves per TC, that would still be punishable, but could pass as conducted moves that could be posted in the threads. This way, the mistake is not obscured, but rather turned more constructive.

 

[donsig]

No he cant it has to be after giving at least 24 hours notice, and if its online it needs to have an exact time.

The DP can indeed play the save without giving proper notice. You assured that with your brilliant defense of Joe Harker last term.

The point is that the DP can open the save and play it before that 24 hour time period is up. It would not be legal under our rules but it would not be violating Article E of the constitution and therefore would not be a violation of this proposed inititative.

Of course thoughts cannot be controlled, but actions can be governed by rules. If we assume that relatively few people see the information before it is reported and deleted, then the ones who did see it have a choice to make. They can continue discussing it, or they can leave it out of discussions and allow the game to proceed with its natural course as though the information was never there. This is a choice people can make even if it is certain that everyone saw the information. Even if the information does affect the decision, that effect should be private in each person's thoughts, not disseminated to potentially corrupt the thoughts of those who didn't see it.

BTW this is extremely common in American law. I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, but juries are often instructed to ignore some fact. I was on a jury for a trial where the defendant was absent from the trial. Every day, at the beginning of the trial, after lunch, and before going home the judge instructed the jury that the defendant had a perfect right to choose to be absent from the trial, and we were not to consider her absence as evidence of guilt. It was not until the end, after the verdict was given, that we found out for sure that she had jumped bail and disappeared. In deliberations we did our honorable duty, not mentioning or discussing why she wasn't at the trial.

That's all I ask here, is for a rule that says if you see something illegal you should report it and never discuss it.

DaveShack, don't you watch tv? Even Perry Mason would get in some dig at his opposition that would be objected to and sustained with the judge telling the jury to ignore it. But, can they really? Of course not and lawyers know that and use the tactic all the time.

I think you and the other moderators have our blessing to erase this sort of illegal information as long as you catch it fast enough and it wasn't the DP who did it. We've had times where some newbie comes in and plays the save and makes a post. Then an old hand will see it and report it and a moderator will remove it. The mod and the old timer keep mum and usually do the noble thing of staying out of discussions regarding what they know but should not know. We don't have a problem with that and welcome it.

When the designated player is the one disseminating such information things are different. That's what happened last term. Since it was the DP it (rightly) had an aura of authenticity about it and that may have contributed to the second difference: the information became general knowledge. When it gets to that point we can't just ignore it. It's much better to get it into the open and decide if we are to pretend we don't know it or to accept the actions that got us the information and their consequences. At the point it becomes general knowledge we need to address it as a group and decide as a group how to handle it. Your proposed initiative takes that option away.

We're better off going as we have been and nipping these things in the bud if possible. On those rare occasions where it isn't possible we need to address on a case by case basis.

 

[DaveShack]

We should rather have a clause, that if the DP does play 2-3 moves without scheduling the moves per TC, that would still be punishable, but could pass as conducted moves that could be posted in the threads. This way, the mistake is not obscured, but rather turned more constructive.

Sorry, I see a risk of someone abusing this to move the game in a desired direction regardless of the personal consequences. However, the special case where instructions are complete and followed is worth further discussion.

The approach for that situation might be to move the info to an invisible location, review it to make sure instructions were actually followed, and possibly get a citizen decision to use/not use before the info is revealed. That way the citizens aren't put into an impossible situation of approving the use of material they've already seen.

Even with the "oops I played a little too early" clause, the keshik move would have still been illegal (though for a different reason), since LB1 was for the (reported incorrectly by the game but we didn't know it yet) higher percentage double square move.

 

[DaveShack]

At the point it becomes general knowledge we need to address it as a group and decide as a group how to handle it. Your proposed initiative takes that option away.

We're better off going as we have been and nipping these things in the bud if possible. On those rare occasions where it isn't possible we need to address on a case by case basis.

Very reasonable, if you accept the restriction that discussion of the possibly general knowledge item needs to be withheld (preferably voluntarily) until after the community decides to use it. Thank you for the constructive comment.

3. The citizens may choose, via initiative, to override this law and use a specific instance of illegally obtained information. The nature of the information and the information itself shall not be used as a basis for the choice. Dissemination of the information remains restricted until the initiative has been approved.

 

[DaveShack]

The DP can indeed play the save without giving proper notice. You assured that with your brilliant defense of Joe Harker last term.

I inferred from that case that the save can be played later than (originally) scheduled, but IIRC nothing was even argued about playing it earlier than (originally) scheduled.

The point is that the DP can open the save and play it before that 24 hour time period is up. It would not be legal under our rules but it would not be violating Article E of the constitution and therefore would not be a violation of this proposed inititative.

This initiative can easily be modified so that Article E isn't the only basis for information being illegally obtained.

 

[donsig]

Very reasonable, if you accept the restriction that discussion of the possibly general knowledge item needs to be withheld (preferably voluntarily) until after the community decides to use it. Thank you for the constructive comment.

3. The citizens may choose, via initiative, to override this law and use a specific instance of illegally obtained information. The nature of the information and the information itself shall not be used as a basis for the choice. Dissemination of the information remains restricted until the initiative has been approved.

DaveShack, how in the heck can we restrict talking about it until we decide to use it? In order to decide to use it we'd have to talk about it. Also, if it got to the point of being common knowledge it would have been talked about. I was talking about the Joe Harker move before I even knew anyone had attempted to squelch the information. To add another cliche to those I've already used in this thread: you're trying to close the barn door after the horse ran off. PLease let it go and don't saddle us with a bad rule that we do not need.

I inferred from that case that the save can be played later than (originally) scheduled, but IIRC nothing was even argued about playing it earlier than (originally) scheduled.

Not yet. But given the recent judicial ruling that the game play scheduling initiative does not require an exact time it is now very difficult to tell just when a save is played before it's supposed to be! Broadening your proposal to inculde any unofficial game play sessions is very dangerous. We would run the risk of having an entire game play session ruled illegal information. Such a controversy would rival the legendary PIs we had in DGI and DGIII (). Let's not open that can of worms.

 

[Provolution]

Sorry, I see a risk of someone abusing this to move the game in a desired direction regardless of the personal consequences. However, the special case where instructions are complete and followed is worth further discussion.

The approach for that situation might be to move the info to an invisible location, review it to make sure instructions were actually followed, and possibly get a citizen decision to use/not use before the info is revealed. That way the citizens aren't put into an impossible situation of approving the use of material they've already seen.

Even with the "oops I played a little too early" clause, the keshik move would have still been illegal (though for a different reason), since LB1 was for the (reported incorrectly by the game but we didn't know it yet) higher percentage double square move.

I got a very concrete proposal here, we can make a FAQ for finding out about game-rules for test purposes. That no-one is allowed to experiment with the savegame itself, but they have to form a special test-game to make tests.
Joe made the game itself a test-zone. If he knew testing in-game was bad, then he would not do so.

This is why we need to clarify game research options in the same go, and not only focusing on denying options.

 

[DaveShack]

Sounds like a good contribution for our main forum info thread.

 

[Provolution]

Sounds like a good contribution for our main forum info thread.

I got a concrete proposal for the FAQ:

Any testing of game-rule designated for an in-game move for Demogame 2 for Civ, should be done outside of the demogame save itself. Only background data from the latest official turn is legitimate to add to a test model. The map and units need to be placed manually into the model. Any experimentation with the save beyond the timestamp of the last played save, or tampering with demogame saves in general may lead to the ban and expulsion from the game.

Any moves with units that are not authorized by instruction threads will be considered illegal, and information obtained from non-authorized moves will also be considered illegal, leading to full censorship from responsible moderator.

We also recommend to investigate the strategy, game mechanism and rule articles at the CFC website in place of tampering with the save, which may save you for grievous legalities and personal tragedy at the hands of the intense and inquisitive amateur legalists at the Demogame.

It is not legalese, but entertaining and illustrative.