Poll for Rule 2.4 Amendment

[fe3333au]

donsig has proposed the following amendment to rule 2.4.

Here's the original rule:

Originally Posted by The Ruleset
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)

Here's the proposed amendment (changes are in bold and italics):

Originally Posted by 2.4 Amendment
2.4 - Fair trades and peace treaties; unit transparency

Description: No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent what is offered in trades or peace treaties. No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent unit types.

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 of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using the renaming 'feature' to name a city after a tech or sum of gold is a violation of this rule. Using the renaming 'feature' to name a unit after another type of unit is a violation of this rule.

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

Link to discussion - Begins in post 59

UN Reps: Please post your team's vote on this amendment.

Option 1 - Yes, my team agrees to this amendment.

Option 2 - No, my team does not agree to this amendment.

Option 3 - My team abstains

 

[fe3333au]

Another tedious poll ... But at the same time, just don't want everyone waiting for us to get our act together ...

 

[peter grimes]

I officially abstain on grounds that this whole renaming morass is 'destoying the fun atmosphere', yet I don't see anything blatantly wrong with the new wording.

 

[fe3333au]

Hear Hear Peter ! ... Hope this is the last one

 

[Meleager]

I am still a bit worried when it comes to the F11 screen and intellegence. Whats your thoughts fe?

 

[fe3333au]

In regards to what Mel?

The F-Sceens will only give city names ... i would prefer naming a city only once and then another civ can rename once in their possession.

Units named only once and then 'modified' when updated.

But most don't care for this ... therefore I certainly don't want any trade misrepresenation loop holes ... from the 'free for all' group

 

[Kentharu]

BORING!!! this should have been done a while ago let it DIE!

 

[fe3333au]

CivGeneral when you vote for us can you indicate how the vote has gone and stress that many (if not all) are totally fed up with the whole scenario.

 

[Meleager]

"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."

I take it this is suppose to be:
"Definition: Cities can not 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."

@fe: The rule has no restrictions on the ammount of times a city can be renamed. We could rename athens every turn if we so wish.... sending intellegence out the window.

 

[fe3333au]

@Mel ... I know ... but that is not what I gather this poll is about ... I'm with you ... on the adhoc city renaming, the intel gathered from F-11 would be useless ... and hence making Looking Glass a big waste of time ...

But atm ... I am getting p'ed off with a certain team trying to strong arm the debate and clutter everything with legalese bullshyte ...

 

[GenMarshall]

I would like to thank the original poster of this thread for posting this poll during my time of absence due to personal reasons (which can be found in the Leaving and returning thread).

 

[fe3333au]

So is 4:2:4
Is that Abstain
or Accept with a very very strong leaning towards Abstain

Damn
I am going to get a reputation for being a bully and possibly arsshole

<deep breath> But so be it ... Why have YOU not posted our vote on the UN poll thread !!! ... it has been up since 17th !!!

Again I appologize if you have had a traumatic RL issue ... but how else am i to react with NO INFORMATION !!! ... all I can see atm is slackness ...

If there is a problem all you have to do is inform us ... and you will find that the persons of the team will rally around in support ... please keep us in the loop

 

[RegentMan]

Why have YOU not posted our vote on the UN poll thread !!!

So is 4:2:4
Is that Abstain
or Accept with a very very strong leaning towards Abstain

Your two statements contradict themselves. Your first one wonders how to break the tie, while your second one attacks CivGeneral for not posting M.I.A.'s vote (which is a tie!).

Simmer the heck down. If he did have a traumatic RL issue, real life > MTDG. He was absent, and you posted the poll. Do not go off on CG like that; it might not have been his fault for his absence and it's certainly not his fault that M.I.A. doesn't have an alternate UN Rep. plan when it comes to absences.

 

[fe3333au]

@Regent Man ... I stand corrected ... perhaps I am over reacting ... But that is why I have apologized in advance to both my postings to CivGeneral ...

However this is not the first time someone has had to compensate and second guess ...

So with all due respect ...

It is just frustrating to see one of your polls taking so long for our team to react to ... all I (and I am positive that others of the team expect) is that we are kept in the loop. RL issues happen (as they do) but the person has agreed to perform a position for the team ... information should have been posted or relayed to us on this forum ... I see no excuse for information to be posted somewhere else and NOT on the relivant game thread or at least passed on to us ...

The first portion of my post was simply an observation ... how do we interpret the internal poll result and relay it to the UN ...

What I expect from the Captain is to either
>ask the question (as I did) from the team
>or simply post the raw results on your poll (it has been over a week since you posed the question and requested team input)
>or ask for help from the team to assist in doing the job.

I am not attacking CivGeneral and if he has any sense he should see that ... however he stuffed up ... and the critisism should be seen as constructive ...

 

[GenMarshall]

Can we please have enough of these attacks, I am certanly not in the mood for them. Especialy after losing a loved one

.

 

[fe3333au]

Understood ... see Captain's Thread for extended message