1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ruleset Discussion

Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. Yuufo

    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...
     
  2. tobiasn

    tobiasn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    Tbh, I can't see how you can shuffle and not have anyone double move?

    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.
     
  3. Bowsling

    Bowsling Chieftain

    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.
     
  4. Hercules90

    Hercules90 Chieftain

    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.
     
  5. tobiasn

    tobiasn Chieftain

    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.

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

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    Firstly, which team are you on Hercules90? Or is your post a personal views post?
    What is getting out of hand?

    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.
    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).
    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.
     
  7. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    There has been discussion on the following:
    not tempted to change - it is the preamble.
    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.
    Wasn't this a vote? Or was it a rule - need to check the latest LP rule draft.
    Need to include rule outlining how vote decisions can be changed and how rules can be changed ... suggestion follows:
    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.
     
  8. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    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.
     
  9. DNK

    DNK Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,562
    Location:
    Saigon
    k, that would be important to include.
     
  10. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    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'
     
  11. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    So instead they miss a turn?
     
  12. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    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."
     
  13. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    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.
     
  14. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,946
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Double post
     
  15. Magno_uy

    Magno_uy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    273
    go go go! :clap:
     
  16. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    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
    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.
     
  17. r_rolo1

    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 ;)
     
  18. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    9,038
    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'?
     
  19. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Well, technically you posted them so I can do that ;) Do you prefer "aggregated by ruff" to be more formal ? :D
     
  20. Yuufo

    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
     

Share This Page