Ruleset Discussion

Yuufo

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
54
We can also forbide logins with special characters in name (or put that in the MOD)
Even if I don't see why someone would deliberately want to crash Civstats...
 

tobiasn

Warlord
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
265
Location
Norway
ruff_hi said:
That said - we should include a 'no double move' during shuffle rule.

Tbh, I can't see how you can shuffle and not have anyone double move?

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

I think at some point we have to call it quits, and that r_rolo1 has to step in and set a deadline for rules approval. With or without the 3d section.

Again, these are my personal views.
 

Bowsling

Deity
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
5,000
Location
Ontario, Canada
We might want to remove "undeniable" from 3c. Although I can't think of any off the top of my head, there may be cases where the admin wishes to deny a shuffle request. Best to allow the admin freedom to do so.
 

Hercules90

Deity
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
2,557
This getting out of hand guys. I am confused.

On the declaring war issue we all wished for a double move mod (and voted for such, hoping that would solve the issue). But it hasn't convinced us. First we are not sure what happens when 3 or more teams are involved in war. We are discussing periodic shuffling of playing order. That is confusing and will give rise to argument.

Secondly we are worried about abuse of the rules in the context of fair play. I say let the Admin decide after listening to the arguments for and against.

But his/her decision should also include a restrictions on what team moves are permissable, in the replay, following his/her ruling.

In short r_rolo1 present your ruleset updated, after what you have received in feedback and ruff_hi likewise. And let us choose.
 

tobiasn

Warlord
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
265
Location
Norway
Just to make this absolutely clear, for anyone that's gone all tl;dr on this whole thread (I don't blame them):

- RB proposed a ruleset
- There were some controversy around a rule that was there to adress some consequences that might arise from the way turn order at war is solved in simultaneous MP games
- CFC called for all teams to submit their proposed rules or alterations, and did submit a ruleset
- It dawned on everyone that we pretty much just disagreed on one issue
- Fast forward like 2.000.000 posts, ruff made a pretty nice amalgam ruleset, albeit not touching the controversial bit, that pretty much everyone think is great
- Some people, including myself, found out that mzprox actually had proposed that teams could change turn order, and that such a thing could pretty much eradicate the need for any type of core-gameplay-altering rules
- We started trying to make rules out of it

And here we are.

I think we're at a point where we would profit from a firm moderator action, picking up the ruleset as-is, or making adjustments at his discretion, but choosing something that possibly can be accepted in all teams, and putting that forward for a final vote.

Hercules90 said:
In short r_rolo1 present your ruleset updated, after what you have received in feedback and ruff_hi likewise. And let us choose.

:agree: I just want to start the game, tbh. ;)
 

ruff_hi

Live 4ever! Or die trying
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
9,123
Location
an Aussie in Boston
Firstly, which team are you on Hercules90? Or is your post a personal views post?
This getting out of hand guys. I am confused.
What is getting out of hand?

On the declaring war issue we all wished for a double move mod (and voted for such, hoping that would solve the issue). But it hasn't convinced us. First we are not sure what happens when 3 or more teams are involved in war. We are discussing periodic shuffling of playing order. That is confusing and will give rise to argument.

Secondly we are worried about abuse of the rules in the context of fair play. I say let the Admin decide after listening to the arguments for and against.
You raise some good points - that we are spending a short amount of time trying to get a list of rules that isn't too long and attempts to provide clarity. There will always be situations that arise which the rules don't cover - thus the admin's role is also outlined.
In short r_rolo1 present your ruleset updated, after what you have received in feedback and ruff_hi likewise. And let us choose.
There is no rolo ruleset. The ruleset rolo posted was a 100% copy of a CFC suggestion. There was also a suggestion by the game organizer that all current rulesets are combined and then voted on. That is exactly what has been happening for the last 100 posts (except the combining part has been in public, where the game organizer suggested a private combining role.

The rule set that I, tobiasn, Bowsling, DNK, 2metraninja, Filon, DaveShack and others (apologies for not naming you) have been working on is an offspring of the CFC rule set (also the one rolo posted) and the pre-game organizer rule set construction method announcement that also had a wide range of input (but was a RB set at its heart).
Just to make this absolutely clear, for anyone that's gone all tl;dr on this whole thread (I don't blame them):

- RB proposed a ruleset
- There were some controversy around a rule that was there to adress some consequences that might arise from the way turn order at war is solved in simultaneous MP games
- CFC called for all teams to submit their proposed rules or alterations, and did submit a ruleset
- It dawned on everyone that we pretty much just disagreed on one issue
- Fast forward like 2.000.000 posts, ruff made a pretty nice amalgam ruleset, albeit not touching the controversial bit, that pretty much everyone think is great
- Some people, including myself, found out that mzprox actually had proposed that teams could change turn order, and that such a thing could pretty much eradicate the need for any type of core-gameplay-altering rules
- We started trying to make rules out of it

And here we are.

I think we're at a point where we would profit from a firm moderator action, picking up the ruleset as-is, or making adjustments at his discretion, but choosing something that possibly can be accepted in all teams, and putting that forward for a final vote.
Very nice summary :).
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.
 

ruff_hi

Live 4ever! Or die trying
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
9,123
Location
an Aussie in Boston
Latest set of rules in this thread
There has been discussion on the following:
Under the Preamble, rule lawyer
not tempted to change - it is the preamble.
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.
Good point - I think we should have some open message re any ruling but confidential information (eg maps, unit placement, current tech, etc) should be redacted.
Under section (04), why was the limitation on sharing map images without Paper removed?
Wasn't this a vote? Or was it a rule - need to check the latest LP rule draft.
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.
Need to include rule outlining how vote decisions can be changed and how rules can be changed ... suggestion follows:
05e. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes.

05f. Game Rules - Rules can be changed by 2/3 majority of teams with admin consent or by 100% majority of teams (regardless of admin consent) or by admin ruling.

Note 05f becomes 05g Game Reloads.
We also need some clarity on the 'at war turn shuffle' re teams wanting to move to an earlier slot.
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.
 

talonschild

Drive-By NESer
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
1,954
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
The CFC forums have been abuzz over rule 3c. Our problem runs thusly:

The original proposal allowed teams to inflict a doublemove on themselves in order to gain a later position in the turn and thus avert resource denial. We do not believe that many teams would be so masochistic, but we're willing to accept that some might be. However, the wording of 3c also allows teams to request an earlier turn position, thus allowing themselves to doublemove others. We know that doublemoves are liable to cause game-ending arguments. Thus we believe that while it's fine for teams to knowingly subject themselves to a doublemove, we do not believe it's okay to legalize a way for teams to doublemove others without their consent.

I propose therefore that 3c be amended to only allow teams to request a later turn position. There is already a provision for the team bumped earlier to request getting moved back a few turns later. Remove the ability to request a doublemove. It CANNOT end well.
 

ruff_hi

Live 4ever! Or die trying
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
9,123
Location
an Aussie in Boston
The CFC forums have been abuzz over rule 3c. Our problem runs thusly:

The original proposal allowed teams to inflict a doublemove on themselves in order to gain a later position in the turn and thus avert resource denial. We do not believe that many teams would be so masochistic, but we're willing to accept that some might be. However, the wording of 3c also allows teams to request an earlier turn position, thus allowing themselves to doublemove others. We know that doublemoves are liable to cause game-ending arguments. Thus we believe that while it's fine for teams to knowingly subject themselves to a doublemove, we do not believe it's okay to legalize a way for teams to doublemove others without their consent.

I propose therefore that 3c be amended to only allow teams to request a later turn position. There is already a provision for the team bumped earlier to request getting moved back a few turns later. Remove the ability to request a doublemove. It CANNOT end well.
Yes - some one else brought that up too. However, I feel that we should include such a provision (ie that you can move forward in the turn order) in case everyone is wrong and being first in the turn order is a kick ass place to be. Yes - such a rule would need to include something like ...

'teams moving up the turn order, cannot / should not double move teams that have changed position relative to them'
 

2metraninja

Defender of Nabaxica
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
5,666
Location
Plovdiv, BG
I was thinking in the lines of something like:

"If team is deprived from a strategical resource for 5 consecutive turns, he can ask to take last turn position."
 

talonschild

Drive-By NESer
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
1,954
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
An excellent point was raised in the Team CFC private forum: We're providing provisions for switching to EITHER slot.

So we believe both are valid positions.

Why the hell do we need all this ruling and legalese?

We just demonstrated that we think they're both valid. Let's scrap Rule 3c and start the thrice-damned game.
 

ruff_hi

Live 4ever! Or die trying
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
9,123
Location
an Aussie in Boston
Here is the latest rule set reflecting the past few posts. New or changed in this post:
  • 01f - Game Admin ruling communication
  • 3c split into 3c, 3d - war order reshuffles
  • 3e formalized - war order reshuffle appeal
  • 4d - map images added
  • various re-lettering based on the above
Comments regarding 3c and 3d ...
  • everyone is saying that order isn't important - because going first or last has its advantages and disadvantages
  • however, a large group still think that going second is more important and want some rule to address loss of resources
  • the suggestion to reshuffle the order so that teams can move down the order to 'protect' their resources at the cost of a double move gained acceptance
  • but what if everyone is wrong and going first ends up being the kick ass strategy
  • so ... we also need a rule saying that teams could move up the list (just in case)
  • but that opens up a rule enabled double move that I am unsure how to codify
  • I think that 3c will gain lots of support during the voting stage
  • but I expect 3d to be voted down
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. The Game Admin should start a thread that communicates allegations of rule infringements, parties involved, rule(s) allegedly infringed, evidence of infringement (providing proprietary information is not disclosed) and Game Admin ruling.

g. 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 to later slot - All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to a later slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for a later position goes to the team that is currently earlier in the turn. The team moving ‘down’ the order acknowledges that they are giving the team moving ‘up’ a double move against them.

d. Turn Order Shuffle to earlier slot – All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to an earlier slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for an earlier position goes to the team that is currently later in the turn.

e. Turn Order Appeals – 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.

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

g. 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.

h. 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. Sharing of Map Images – Map images / screenshots cannot be shared outside of the game until it is possible to share maps in-game.

e. 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.

f. 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. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes.

f. Game Rules - Rules can be changed by 2/3 majority of teams with admin consent or by 100% majority of teams (regardless of admin consent) or by admin ruling.

g. 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.
 

r_rolo1

King of myself
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
13,818
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Moderator Action: Ok, I did not wanted to intervene with a heavy hand, but we are taking too much time discussing rules. I know that rulesets are important and such, but being in bizantine discussions about a single point or two will only serve to delay the game start.

So:

- I give 72h from this moment to end the discussions on the ruleset

- If the teams do not agree on the ruletset, I will pick the proposal posted by ruff above ( that seems to be balanced enough and apparently most teams agree with the majority of the points ) and will pick it with the alterations that the teams might have agreed on in the next 72h

I know there will be people less than happy with the overall result if there is no consensus, but the game must start soon enough ... summer is coming and all of that ;)
 

ruff_hi

Live 4ever! Or die trying
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
9,123
Location
an Aussie in Boston
Great! Thanks rolo for your push. Teams! Grab the latest set and chew them over in your own threads (where ever they are on the inter-web) and post back with comments ... the rolo clock is ticking.

@rolo - one small item ... sure, I have been acting as a co-ordinator of the current round of rules discussion, but those rules aren't mine. Can you change the terminology to 'posted by ruff'?
 

Yuufo

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
54
Hi, this is important!
I am on holiday without Internet access from July 3th till July 17th.
Since Team Uciv hasn't appointed any vice-captain yet, I created a mailbox to allow communication with my team : uciv.isdg2@gmail.com
Should the game actually start before I am back, please inform my teammates by sending an email there.

I edit my sig too.
Bye
 
Top Bottom