Ruleset Discussion

[tobiasn]

Yeah they're in my proposal for 3

 

[DaveShack]

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.

 

[ruff_hi]

@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 ...

'02. In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)'

... to ...

'02. In Game Actions'

... and ...

'03. In Game Actions (sequential game items)'

... to ...

'03. In Game Actions (war edition)'

... 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.

 

[DaveShack]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[tobiasn]

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.

 

[Magno_uy]

Yeah they're in my proposal for 3

 

[ruff_hi]

I do recommend the 3 turn minimum though, because without it we might see a slowdown from constant jockeying for position.

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.

 

[tobiasn]

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.

 

[ruff_hi]

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.

ISDG 2012 Rules

• Preamble
• Rule Infringing
• In Game Actions (excluding sequential game items)
• In Game Actions (sequential game items)
• Out of Game Actions
• Administration

Preamble
We the undersigned, celebrating the game that is Civ4 and, given the male / female Civ4 ratio is at least 10:1 if not 20:1, have gathered together to play ISDG 2012 in the hope of:

• Impressing the few females that we actually find in Civ4
• Winning the game
• Demonstrating our mastery of Civ4 in all of its aspects
• Testing our interpersonal skills via diplomacy
• Resisting the urge to rule lawyer everyone to death
• Planning to eliminate all other teams and especially savouring the opportunity of causing others to suffer the might of our forces more than once
• And, finally, standing victorious on the broken bones and crushed skulls of our opponents

With these aims, we collectively agree to:

• Play with honour
• Make our mothers proud that they could trust us to 'Be Good'
• Offer respect to the other teams and expect the return of same

Further, we also acknowledge that this preamble is not a rule and is merely a representations of our intent and hopes.


01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

b. When an allegation of rule infringement has been leveled at one or more teams by one or more teams, the game will be paused.

c. Each side of the alleged rule infringement will appoint a spokesperson. 'Prosecutor' for the alleging team or teams, 'Defender' for the alleged rule infringer.

c. Evidence of alleged rule infringement will be collected and forwarded to the Game Admin together with any accompanying explanatory text by the Prosecutor.

d. The Game Admin will forward this information to the Defender and ask for feedback.

e. Upon receiving feedback (or after a reasonable amount of time at the Game Admin's discretion), the Game Admin will rule on the alleged infringement, determine the penalty (if any), the resolution (if any) and those determinations will be acted upon.

f. All rulings under this rule by the Game Admin are final.


02. In Game Actions
a. The following in-game action rules apply at all times.

b. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

c. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

d. Unit Gifting, Unlock Building - Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for the Heroic Epic is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for West Point is not allowed.

e. Unit Gifting, war ally support - A team can only gift units to a war ally during the war ally's portion of the turn.

f. Bugs and Exploits - The use of any bug or exploit is not allowed. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug or exploit rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug or exploit.

g. In-Game Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any team encountering a paused game should consult the CFC based turn-tracker thread. If a team has not requested a pause in that thread, the game may be unpaused.

h. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.


03. In Game Actions (war edition)
a. Civilizations that are at war must observe turn order. Turn order is automatically fixed by the APT Mod on the first turn of war.

b. Teams must also observe turn order on the turn immediately prior to the first turn of War.

b1. Declarer Desires First Half Example: If the declarer desires to move first during the war phase turns, they must move before their 'target' in the turn preceding their war declaration.

b2. Declarer Desires Second Half Example: If the declarer desires to move second during the war phase turns, they must move after their 'target' in the war declaration turn.

c. Turn Order Shuffle (Lex mzprox) - All teams at war have the undeniable right to request an order shuffle providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. Any team can request any position in the order. If order requests conflict, the priority for a later position goes to the team that is currently earlier in the turn; the priority for an earlier position goes to the team that is currently later in the turn.

Note that a team can appeal to the game admin that the shuffle order is unfair and that the game admin can adjust the shuffle order at his discretion.

d. Joining an existing war - Teams will exercise care so as to avoid any double move when joining an ally in an existing war.

e. Care should be exercised on the war declaration turn so that the mod can correctly assign war turn order. This means that teams should not leave the game without finishing the turn on the turn that they declare war or the team being declared on should not enter the game until the declarer has finished their turn.

f. Teams can't declare war on a team that is currently online. Teams cannot permanently stay online just to avoid being declared on.


04. Out of Game Actions
a. Team Espionage - All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
Non-exhaustive list of example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Pre In-Game Contact - Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed. Non-exhaustive list of example: meeting privately to discuss in-game actions, game-related deals, in-game agreements, etc.). Note that teams meeting to discuss rules, ramifications of the impact of votes or rules are allowed.

d. Game Pause Requests - Any team may request a pause by posting in the CFC turn-tracker thread. The purpose of the pause must be included in the pause request.

e. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.


05 - Administration
a. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

b. Victory - The winner of the game is the first team recognized as winner by in-game victory dialog.

c. Defeated Teams - Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

e. Voting - All votes during the game require unanimous agreement by all teams. If teams cannot reach unanimous agreement the decision will be decided by the game administrator.

f. Game Reloads - All game reloads will trigger an automatic game pause (game admin will post such in game pause thread) for a minimum of 24 hours or until each team that logged in to the game after the reload point has stated in the game pause thread that they are ready to continue.

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.

 

[DaveShack]

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

 

[ruff_hi]

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.

 

[Filon]

b2. Declarer Desires Second Half Example: If the declarer desires to move second during the war phase turns, they must move after their 'target' in the war declaration turn.

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

 

[2metraninja]

"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.

 

[tobiasn]

Nice work ruff

 

[Yuufo]

A personal idea:

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

 

[DNK]

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.

 

[ruff_hi]

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..."

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 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.

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.

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

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

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 point - care to draft a definition for us?

 

[tobiasn]

Oh, ruff, this

Any team can request any position in the order. If order requests conflict, the priority for a later position goes to the team that is currently earlier in the turn; the priority for an earlier position goes to the team that is currently later in the turn.

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?

 

[ruff_hi]

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.

 

[DNK]

[me: what's voting?]Good point - care to draft a definition for us?

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