MTDG amendment- renaming and fairness pledge

[ybbor]

Do you agree to the following amendments to the rules:

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

2.4 - Renaming Units and Cities

Description: Teams are permitted to rename their units and cities as they please.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely. For this reason, we encourage teams to formally write out their trade proposals and submit it to the admins to prevent this from happening.

4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to adhere not only to the written rules, but also to the unwritten, spirit of the rules. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to not tamper with the game itself, to not unfairly gain access to secret information from other teams, and to follow these rules to the best of my ability. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

personally, I would meet these with a strong No! While a toning down of the rules is fine, completely permitting the renaming of cities/units for the express purpose of misleading through re-naming is ludicrous. the first time i read it I thought GA was joking to see if we were really reading it. Any input will be appreciated.

The poll will be open untila consensus seems to have been reached. GA hasn't specified yet, so I will have it open for 4 days, but we easily vote earlier. It is unclear whether I or CG will be responsible for voting in this poll.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

[james bond]I never joke about my work.[/james bond]

ybbor, this rule isn't for people to rename to mislead. It's for people to rename without the hassle of a thread and other investigations.

PS: How did city names switching mislead you? Did you make you take any other different actions? Did it alter the course of the game?

 

[General_W]

I really don't see the current rules as a problem.

This past situation was just highly unfortunate all around. The sooner it is behind us the better - IMO.

I vote no.

 

[Kentharu]

with my all important vote i shall abstain!
why because don't think its that important

 

[Meleager]

I dont like this:
"Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to"

feel free to rename cities but just not for the sole purpose of putting people off.

I voted no.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Meleager, in order to spur some discussion: how do you tell if someone is intending to trick someone or put them off? The whole purpose of this is to stray away from "intent", "spirit", and "unwritten rules" to make things clear.

I am not in anyway endorsing either side.

 

[Meleager]

Well there is 2 ways I can think of...
The first is if someone names their city "2 gold per turn" or "iorn"
the second would be you guys seeing in their forum

I dont have any problem with them renaming cities to confuse people or anything, i just think it is plain dirty to rename a city for the sole purpose of ripping them off in a trade. But then i guess you did add the "give official treaties to the game admins thing" (@ fe3333au -> did we do that?)

EDIT - Ahh, starting to catch up after my absence so now i am starting to see where this is comming from...

 

[peter grimes]

One small comment, against my better judgement: Worst Amendment Ever. Let the rules stand as they are! TNT was an unfortunate casualty of a lack of tact on all sides, but we should ALL of us move on.

 

[peter grimes]

It's a shame this wasn't split into two separate polls. I approve of the New 4.3, as it very closely embodies my personal reading of the original. But since this is a simple up/down take it or leave it, my vote stands.

 

[ybbor]

It's a shame this wasn't split into two separate polls. I approve of the New 4.3, as it very closely embodies my personal reading of the original. But since this is a simple up/down take it or leave it, my vote stands.

ditto- to some degree. I certianly oppose 2.3, but 4.3, i am kinda undecided about, my gut reaction would be against, but i would hold my vote until i heard some good debate

 

[Meleager]

It's a shame this wasn't split into two separate polls. I approve of the New 4.3, as it very closely embodies my personal reading of the original. But since this is a simple up/down take it or leave it, my vote stands.

Agreed.
Although my definition of the "spirit of the rules" is more about having fun.

 

[fe3333au]

This whole debate is based on F-11 ... prior to this game I didn't really look nor totally understand these screens or even the VPs scoring ... just thought it would be fun to have a look and see what could be predicted ...

For me ... the 2.4 ammendment I'm against it ... cos of F-11 ... I do see F-11 as a facet of the game which is equally deserving as being explored ...

So renaming cities for me, tricks the game engine ... if the admins want us to ignore this facet of the game engine ...

Being able to rename will also make a lot of espionage redundent ... which is a pity as I wanted to explore this facet of the game as well ... can you imagine spending heaps of gold to 'explore' a city and then it is renamed ... or names swapped ...

It also goes against the 'fantasy' element of the game ... for me Civ is a mixture of strategy and fantasy ... and it seems inconguous to me of a civ of people just randomly renaming ...

I suspect that allowing open slather re-naming will primarily be used to 'hide' or 'confuse' ... and surely there are more subtle ways of doing this then re-naming and swaping names ...

 

[Chamnix]

I think renaming cities for deceptive trades is an exploit not intended to be in the game just like breaking into the production sequence to switch tiles, for example. In a single player game, you could never trick the AI this way, and the AI could never trick you, even if it were programmed to rename cities because you can see it comes from the "city" section of the diplomacy screen. This is an exploit that was not meant to be used and should not be permitted.

 

[classical_hero]

4.3 Seems to be very well thought out, but 2.4 is a definite

 

[azzaman333]

I like 4.3, hate 2.4.