New Rule Proposal

[Whomp]

Yes or no?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=129777


I say no. I don't like people renaming anything with words that are game related like "gold", "tundra" etc.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

...just to spur some discussion:

What about cities people want to name after landmarks, such as "Gold Palace" or "Tundra-mania", etc.

Not trying to sway anyone, just to get people thinking.

 

[gmaharriet]

I haven't read anything else in THIS forum yet...only the posts in the main forum. Just an observation....

If trickery and confusion is to be allowed and considered a part of the game, why have any rules at all? Why not contact a civ you haven't met in-game to trick another civ? Why not "anything goes"?

Some of the players on some teams are experienced at playing against other people. Some of us are not. Whatever rule is eventually decided upon, it should be equally clear to experienced and non-experienced alike.

Quite frankly, all this nit-picking is taking the fun out of the game for me. I enjoy my fellow team members very much, but some of the others make me want to just leave. And it's the ones objecting most strongly to the rules and "spirit of the game" who become the most frustrated with our team's lack of organizational structure. Ya can't have it both ways!!!


Edited to add: I also say NO.

 

[Nikodemus]

Yeah, I thought this was supposed to be a fun different game of civ3, not a competition of who can trick and confuse their opponents with "clever" renaming the most. I'd much rather see the renaming rule changed to something along the lines of

- renaming a city after it has been settled always has to be announced publicly
- no excess renaming as defined by common sense
- no renaming of units to other units

And just because there's one person in the game who apparently doesn't understand what "the spirit of the game" means, doesn't mean it has to be removed from the rules. I'd much rather remove the said person from the game in fact.

So to sum it up: No.

 

[Tubby Rower]

I say no to the first amendment and yes to the second

 

[Daghdha]

NO
On the one hand I appreciate the trickery part of the game as an extra spice. On the other, if trickery is let loose unrestricted, treaties and deals will be awful to write and dreadful to read (except for lawyers). If we are to cover up for every possible cheat when we do deals then they will be 10 pages long... each. Imagine the absolute horror in sending such an agreement back and forth overseas to be revised and rewritten :suicide:.
If the rule is voted for I suggest we make a separate deal (with them possibly trying to trick us in mind ) with MIA. We could agree on very restricted trading overseas and focus wholeheartedly on trading within continent.

Edit: ah, yes. the second one is OK. NO was referring to the first.

 

[Nikodemus]

I don't see why you guys are so eager to remove the mention of "spirit of the game" from the rules. That's the change that opens up the possibility to abuse any loopholes you can possibly find in the rules. While Rik Meleet posted an annoucement that the game should be more about fun than competition, this rule change (well, both of them) is taking it to exactly the opposite direction.

 

[Tubby Rower]

Oh sorry..... I vote no to both... I didn't read what was being removed

 

[Daghdha]

I don't see why you guys are so eager to remove the mention of "spirit of the game" from the rules. That's the change that opens up the possibility to abuse any loopholes you can possibly find in the rules. While Rik Meleet posted an annoucement that the game should be more about fun than competition, this rule change (well, both of them) is taking it to exactly the opposite direction.

I think the ones arguing about the vagueness of "the spirit of the game" has a point. The amandment is a wee bit clearer IMHO and therefore better. I think Ravensfire had a resonably view on it. You can breake the rules but that will come with a price. Not the rules regarding game mechanics and such but those that could maybe be considered "spirit of the game". If we are to cover up for all possibilities the rule set will be too long and complicated especially if we are to clearly define "the spirit of the game". Leave some loopholes open and let those who want to risk their rep. have a go. I think this lot here will dectect the smell of a traitor from across the ocean

 

[Kickbooti]

No.

No.

 

[Nikodemus]

I think the ones arguing about the vagueness of "the spirit of the game" has a point. The amandment is a wee bit clearer IMHO and therefore better.

In my opinion the vagueness is a strength, not a weakness. Like you say, it's not possible to cover all the possibilities with exact rules for each situation. That's exactly why the "spirit of the game" or "spirit of the rules" exists. And we have excellent admins to decide about it in each individual situation. If you leave that out you are free to abuse any loophole you find and only consequence you might have is that the rules get changed afterwards.

I think Ravensfire had a resonably view on it. You can breake the rules but that will come with a price. Not the rules regarding game mechanics and such but those that could maybe be considered "spirit of the game".

And I think that'd apply in a highly competitive game. But this game is not competitive. Sure everyone would like to win but it's also supposed to be fun. In fact even the inter-site demogame has "spirit of the game" in the rules and that game sure has to be more competitive than this one.

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

This thread is too long for me, sorry I didn't both reading arguments, but as booti said.

 

[Daghdha]

And I think that'd apply in a highly competitive game. But this game is not competitive. Sure everyone would like to win but it's also supposed to be fun. In fact even the inter-site demogame has "spirit of the game" in the rules and that game sure has to be more competitive than this one.

This is really not that big a deal for me so I'll gladly follow any ruling and I suppose that goes for the rest of us too knowing you for some time now. I see this game in two perspectives. The first is within our team and here having fun should be the law of the land, and I think it is. Everyone has a glimpse in their eye and we cut eachother a lot of slack when it comes to different opinions. I have a hard time imagineing? a team with more relaxed members. No competition in here about who is the most skilled and whose opinions should hailed as the truth. For me, that's the main thing with this game.
The other perspective is us vs. opponents, and here I am very competitive. Not to the point where I would consider breaking any rules, but surely to conduct some creative diplomacy. That makes it more like it is IRL and I think that is fun. I would never hold it against someone if he/she foold me by breaking a deal. If I got whiped out I would blame myself for not building troops and being able to "read" the situation right. If MIA is currently having a deal with Nuts while saying to us "No, we're with you" I wouldn't be angry with them for ruining the spirit of the game. I would ask Bugs and Barbslinger to whipe them out, he, he. If they tried to plant a mole in our forum or tinker with the save, that would be something else.
This just showes (does it ) how hard it is to have consensus on what the spirit of the game really is, and reading the inter-site stuff I conclude that the SotG-rule did nothing to facilitate the fun aspect of the game there. They're backstabbing eachother after it's over which seems totally ridiculous in my view.
Anyway, I still have a bad cold being home from work (and no single malt to cure it), and have too much time to write too long posts in way too many threads so my apologies for this one . However the vote falls, I will keep having fun with you Niko and all the other anarchists.

 

[Whomp]

This rule thing is exhausting. Let's play ball!!

Rule 2.4 seems to be a consensus "no"
Rule 4.3 is mixed and after reading it I suppose I'm a "yes" since it covers cheaters.

 

[Daghdha]

Go Vote Whomp and tell them we have a completely different take on spirits in this team

For us poor sods that have wasted precious time on even thinking about this I present something uplifting, I am especially found of the Stoned Hitler:

 

[Crakie]

Should I go and read all that? I will if you guys think it's important, but it doesn't seems all that important to me. Seems like some folks have too much time on their hands...

 

[Rik Meleet]

I don't see why you guys are so eager to remove the mention of "spirit of the game" from the rules. That's the change that opens up the possibility to abuse any loopholes you can possibly find in the rules. While Rik Meleet posted an annoucement that the game should be more about fun than competition, this rule change (well, both of them) is taking it to exactly the opposite direction.

Sorry to threadjack.

The announcement was only (meant to be) about the style of posting on the forum. It isn't meant to tell you this game is about fun and not about competition. If you ask me; it's about both fun and competition.

There are some -not to be named- individuals in the teams who'se posting style and discussion style irritate many; while their style is not technically against the rules.
Since I (and other moderators) sensed these styles were negatively influencing the fun this game should bring to all participants, we moderators created a tool we can use to remove (as Sid Meier calls it) "unfun elements of the game" in order to keep it fun. It's not about dictating how you should play.

 

[Bede]

This rule thing is exhausting. Let's play ball!!

Rule 2.4 seems to be a consensus "no"
Rule 4.3 is mixed and after reading it I suppose I'm a "yes" since it covers cheaters.

What he said!!!

 

[Own]

Yes, dirty tricks are fun. J/K, would make the game go crazy.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Rik - Just go out and beat some of those "individuals"