Ruleset Discussion

Yeah they're in my proposal for 3

 

I was hoping what I posted would be the only thing we need for 3.
Now I'll have to go back and slowly read what you posted.

 

@tobiasn - thanks for the draft. There are a few rules in there of what is 'allowed'. All of the other rules are about what is 'not allowed'. I think that we should not have rules that touch on items that have been voted on (ie A rule about Nukes) and we should not have rules about what is allowed. If you have one rule about what is allowed, then it begs the question about why you don't have a rule for all of the other things that are allowed (ie workers are allowed to build cottages). That way lies madness.

As such, I would remove 3d and 3e.

I also think we should change the name of ...

... to ...

... and ...

... to ...

... with 3a being 'In Game Actions under 02 apply at all times'

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.

 

Re-read, and I suppose it should be ok since it's what we posted before with a few modifications.

I do recommend the 3 turn minimum though, because without it we might see a slowdown from constant jockeying for position. You might want to use wording which uses more general terms for the final version.

I think we need an explicit cover rule though, "everything which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed" or something like that. I admit I don't remember if the proposals already have this.

 

Dave I was answering Magno

Ruff you make sense. It's clearer that way and it is of no substantial difference. I'll update my post. I'm on my phone now, do it when I get home.

 

3 or 5? 5 will bring it in line with other civ4 duration items such as civic swaps, etc.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.

 

OK, I updated my proposals like I said.

5 turns makes sense, has pretty much the same effect in a long war than every turn or each 3 turns, only it's less hassle for the admin.

Let me again just say that my proposals are from me personally (even though they're almost all just copies/adaptations of previous proposals ), and has no CFC stamp on them or anything, but that I did this because the best way to enter this game is if we can agree on the rules instead of hitting each others heads with them.

 

Here is a fully updated and combined set of draft rules. I've edited the last 80 posts of discussion into the original draft as well as folding in tobiasn's in-game war edition. I've tried to give the in-game war edition the same feel as the other sections, add clarity and remove some possible first mover bias. I've also give the game admin authority to over-rule the war order shuffle order. Finally, note that some of the rule letter has been changed.

Spoiler My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message :

Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.

 

Excellent work. I think discussion was leaning towards 5 turns instead of 3 for rule 3c. That's the only thing I noticed.

 

I got some off-line push back about that so I referred to the first suggestion. We'll see what the teams say.

 

"Target" played at the end of the turn. What then?

 

I think there is a mechanism in the Spanish mod for such cases. Magno can explain it better than me.

 

Nice work ruff

 

A personal idea:

what about a delay before dead teams players may join another team?

 

Under the Preamble, for this:
"Resisting the urge to rule lawyer everyone to death"

I move that we strike "resisting the urge to". And we change "lawyer" to "lawyering" This is just such a loophole for rule lawyers. They can always claim they "resisted the urge, but were incapable of stopping themselves all the same..."

I request under section (01) that we add an additional subsection of (g) that requires the Game Admin to "submit a summary judgment, including reasons and evidence, to all teams in a public forum." If we are to hand so much authority over to the Game Admin, it is only sensible to insist on a certain level of transparency and communication in the mediation process.

Under section (04), why was the limitation on sharing map images without Paper removed?

Under section (05), subsection (e), what is voting? It is not explained or outlined elsewhere in the document, and as such the subsection is confusing.

 

Good suggestion - I like it. That said, it is in the preamble and any good rule lawyer will not miss that the preamble has no rule of law. Maybe we keep it as is because there will always be some conflict over what a rule means and we can appeal to the rule lawyer about resisting the urge.

I was thinking along the same lines yesterday but we would have to include an exception where confidential information (screenshots or map) were shared with the admin.

No idea - was it? Or was that a vote result?

Good point - care to draft a definition for us?

 

Oh, ruff, this

means that a team can request a double move. Part of what attracted me to the rule was that you could request the last turn at the risk of a double move against you. Giving teams the right to request duble moves, wouldn't that be easy to exploit?

 

yes - you are right. But I think we need to give the team going last the right to go first ... after all - isn't everyone arguing that there is no difference between first and last - they both have their pluses and minuses.

That said - we should include a 'no double move' during shuffle rule.

 

Not really sure what we're voting on is the point...