Reload Amendment and Future Rules

How should the game rules handle reloads, if at all, in the future

  • No reloads

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Decision by game admins (w/ specific criteria)

    Votes: 5 83.3%
  • Teams vote/veto on future reload decisions

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

Earthling

Deity
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
8,518
There is currently discussion in the main demogame forum over how and if rules will be amended to allow reloads. We probably need to have an official team decision, as that's also mostly required for amending rules. The most likely options I've listed in the poll, explanations are:

No further reloads - pretty self-explanatory, it won't happen or be allowed again

Admin decision, with specific requirements - the game admins get to decide whether a reload is allowed. People have proposed various conditions like notifying them of prior plans, being timely with requests (within a turn) etc... so the admins would be bound by that but otherwise have their own say.

Team votes and/or vetos - future reload decisions may be voted on or vetoed by the teams (one vote per team we'd all assume)

Other - some other idea/proposal that's been missed, please don't vote this though unless something is substantially different, it'd just throw off the vote count



Personally, I favor creating an amendment to the game ruleset, that gives the admins criteria for allowing a reload and when a reload cannot be allowed, and that's it. No arbitrary "timeout limit," other teams do not get to vote NOR veto. And actually we still have a weird situation with the moderators perhaps suggestion that the only allowed changes will be this or having no reloads, but it's what I favor anyway.

Will definitely update the thread if there are specific "amendments" being proposed and voted on, this is for a general sentiment behind reloads and a good place to start.
 
I forgot to make the poll public, sorry if that's an inconvenience. :ugh:

But yeah, this is certainly an odd issue but it's not going to go away, some of the complaints in the public forum get on my nerve though (well, it's Indiansmoke, obsolete and others being harsh on Sommerswerd, I just don't think that kind of thing is needed, criticizing other turnplayers).

Again, I voted for giving the game admins a set of criteria (eg, can't reload during war, must notify within 1 turn, etc...) but all future reloads are determined by them.
 
I trust the game admins to make these decisions since they can see everything. Dave McW had already decided that a reload was warranted, he just wanted approval of other teams before charging ahead and doing the reload. I doubt we'll even see another reload anyways.
 
I just like to see Indiansmoke is riled up and Merlots diplomacy in tatters, that is victory enough for me.
 
So...do we have enough support to say that the Q, as a team, are behind any amendments to the ruleset giving the admins the decision on any future reload situation?

If I remember right I think that changes to the ruleset are by one-team, one-vote standards but whenever we think we're ready to say anything in the public forum that's ok by me, I imagine there has to be a vote to amend the ruleset, at the least.

For an amendment to the ruleset of course we would probably still have some specifics, again I favor what someone else already proposed, specifying I think that the admins should consider:

-significance of problem, documented discussion beforehand, and need for reload
-timeliness of request for reload
-no pattern of poor play/one team consistently having a ton of reloads
-no advantage or knowledge gained (scouting etc....)
-no other team's results overly affected by reload (hence, if teams A and B are at war, team C probably is just straight denied a reload, it's not fair to affect the other teams)
 
Here is Rik's suggestion:
Since resolving this topic is important to me, I've made an effort to summarise the conditions for a reload (as mentioned by you in the thread) and the situations where a reload may be allowed (as mentioned by you in the thread). Similar points that are differently phrased are grouped together.

Hope this helps keeping the discussion focussed.


Conditions

1. Serious matter / game destroying event.
2. It can be verified.
3. It doesn’t affect another team.
4. It is not a regular occurrence / (un)limited reloads per team.
5. Request must be immediate.
6. Error has not given any / important benefits.
7. Request made anonymous
8. Admin decision or admin veto
9. Caused by an out of game incident



Situations

1. Settlement error.
2. Deleting / misusing a Great Person.
3. Rage quit.
4. Unintentional war declaration.


Anything missing on the lists ?
If not: please agree or disagree on the (individual) conditions and the (individual) situations.

I think this mostly fits with what you've said, Earthling, though I would like to remove #9 since that is unprovable in any case. It has been suggested that when the request for a reload is made that the admins pause it and that does not count as anybody's timeout. A good way to prevent a team for requesting reloads too many times (#4) is to charge them with the timeout if their request is not granted.
 
Well, that list is based on what other posters were saying, and basically I agreed with that as well, the first person who made a reason list of criteria for the admins to consider.

I personally don't like tying it into "timeouts" but I wouldn't be picky - having some rule that all the teams agree on is better than nothing, and I'd hope it's not a problem, no one seems to care too much about "timeouts" right now either.

I agree with you that #9 is kinda irrevelent, and I'd rather not list a set of situations, there are other situations people would argue about then (slaving, building the wrong thing or something stupid, I dunno). But if we have the first list of conditions, we probably don't need the second list.
 
Bump as there is now a team-voting thread. Do we fully approve, or is there anything to clarify? Anyway, I'm fine with any Q posting our results on the main forum if we are ready

(It's clear we agree on giving the admins decision and approve of the concept in general. If it were me, again, I would remove the list of "situations" as the point of allowing admin control is they decide if the situation is appropriate - rather than seeming to promise that certain situations must be considered or not for reloads)
 
I'm comfortable with the changes as it seems the majority of players on the majority of teams seem to support the amendment to the ruleset.

You've been nursing the issue thus far Earthling. You should see it thru to the end and cast the vote for the Q.
 
That's what I said too, I do not like how the current amendment had to "list" every situation/possible thing they thought of. But in the end I'm not too worried about it - what's more surprising is that two teams have already voted DOWN the proposal and implied they want no more reloads at all.

But we should probably report our results sometime soon anyway, and I don't know how the team really feels about a more detailed description.

Specifically, this poll was between widely divergent option, so votes on the poll approved of admin decision, but we didn't vote on this particular admendment. If you have more to say before we post our team's decision, please do so.
 
I posted our results on the main forum, seeing as they are not likely to change.

Once again, I am certain we're all hoping there won't be any accidents or problems to reload in the future, but we have a ruleset now just in case.
 
Top Bottom