Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Lord Parkin, Jun 1, 2012.
that is acceptable.
Where is the belly laughing smilie?
Representing Team CFC and acknowledging the 72 hour deadline, here is the Team CFC official position on the current ruleset:
We agree to the current ruleset, as compiled by ruff from several rule suggestions (thanks ruff), with the exception of the "shuffle" rules (aka 3c, 3d, and 3e) that we wish to remove/replace. The alternatives we suggest for the rules we wish to remove are (pick one):
1. Remove the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) and ask the mapmaker to give every Civ Oil in their Capital, or;
2. Remove the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) and replace them with a single rule clause that simply states "You cannot fully restore a resource improvement the same turn it's been destroyed", or;
3. As a last resort, if these the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) are voted through we ask for this added clause (to effect all the rules as they are written now): "A Team may only ask for a turn order shuffle after first being deprived of a strategic resource for 5 consecutive turns via the second half timer advantage."
Apolyton has no objection to the current proposed ruleset, we are eager to start the game.
personal note: I think we are talking about a situation which has an extrmely low chance to occur, and even if it does I don't think teams would give up complete turns just to shuffle turn order.
IMO: asking to switch turn order to move in the second half of the turn is ok ONLY if you are deprived a strategic resource which could you secure otherwise AND you pay the price by allowing the other team one double move. There should not be any other reason to manipulate turn order.
also what about we just delay the decision on this rule and start the game? we won't have oil based warfare until a year or so.
Maybe Apolyton supports the rule:
again, this is just personal opinion: I don't agree making the condition to 5 consecutive turns. 4 turns w/o resource then allowing 1 turn is just as bad. As a compomise 2 consecutive turns should be enough to call the rule. I'm quite sure we wouldn't see a single turn swapping request anyway, but we would have this rule just in case.
Spanish apoly also agree with this rules sets and that rolo take the last word on those itmes not resolved
I was directed here to post my concerns. The ruleset may be great or flawed in various and sundry ways, but I have mostly ignored the setup discussion to this point because it has been too long, too heated, and often too mundane for me to take interest. But this particular provision struck me as uniquely problematic:
Any scenario where less than a unanimous consent of teams can change the game rules is rife with far too many possibilities for manipulation. Even with the caveat that the game admin has final authority, there are too many scenarios where greater than 2/3s of the teams are aligned in a coalition and thus gain free reign to manipulate the rule set in ways that favor their side of the coalition. It is simply human nature that the teams will not be able to vote objectively on rule changes which would affect their own status in the game. I believe the only way the agreed rules should be changed is by a unanimous consent of all teams.
As for the ability of the admin to unilaterally modify the rule set, I have far less objection to that aspect. Everyone here seems to have great faith in r_rolo and I have no reason to doubt his ability to admin this game fairly. But speaking as someone who admin'd a large scale, closely followed Pitboss game, I think the provision is problematic because any decision made that negatively affects a team, even if made in the most objective manner possible, can still lead to charges of bias. And as soon as teams stop regarding the game admin as unbiased, it becomes increasingly difficult to admin and make decisions which are respected by all teams in the game.
If any exploit or gap in the rule set is truly gamebreaking, then all teams should be able to agree to fix it. But once the game starts, the difference between using the rules to one's advantage and exploiting the rules simply becomes a matter of perspective, and for that reason alone, leaving the rules in a state as malleable as the current provision allows is quite dangerous.
Spanish forum think thats time to finnish discusion about rules, take this proposal and let Rolo_1 let define whats not yet defined and start the game this weekend...
go go go go!!!!
Quoted by Ruff_hi in post 347 rules update feedback discussion and subsequently in final Rule set proposal.
Speaking personally, I don't think this issue should stall the starting of the game. But Gold_Ergo_Sum makes a reasonable point.
The orginial combined rules proposal for discussion posted by Ruff_hi,(post 329) suggested rule change only by unanimous vote and Admin consent, then this suggestion was put forward for section 5 Admin.
I can't find the post re 5f quoted above by Ruff_hi (post 347), but it seems to take note of comments in posts, 55, 146, and 318.
Most attention was focused on point 3c and war rules that this change to admin section 5 passed relatively unnoticed.
First observation: it should refer to 'remaining' civs in the game as opposed to all civs starting the game. (There is a difference, for example where one civ team passes all control to another civ - is that 2 teams or 1 team?)
Secondly, voting should be explictedly be defined as 1 vote per 'remaining' civ still in the game.
Thirdly a successful 5f vote could actually lead to changing rule 5e.
Lastly, I did not see a lot of teams (as opposed to posters) arguing against unanimous voting with regard to rule change mechanism.
So apart from this possibly unresolved change mechanism, congratulations on drawing the rule set together.
GES and Herc - good posts and points.
Section 5 updated (only showing altered sections) ...
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.
Jul 02, 2012, 02:26 PM to Jul 05, 2012, 02:55 PM is 72.5h ... yay - rule set discussion ends ...
Now we wait for the Admin to presents us the rule-set and we are ready.
Going to PM all the team captains and the host that the game is starting shortly!
Moderator Action: Ok, for all that matters and until I or the teams decide otherwise, this is the ruleset ( preamble omitted for brevity ):
Basically, the ruleset proposed by ruff with the change he suggested today.
I'll just wait for Sommerswerd to post it in the final ruleset/settings thread ( just to make sure he knows about it ... I could obviously edit it in his pre-prepared post ) and for everyone being ready to go ... I would like to see this puppy start this weekend too
Wait a second guys. Just a week ago we all agreed letting teams moving second request a double move every 3rd turn was a terrible idea. No one actually ever advocated letting people move up in turn order to double move someone. Yet somehow no one objected and we let rule 3d make it into the ruleset. Can we all quickly agree letting anyone request a doublemove during wartime is a really bad idea and delete rule 3d?
Unless I am missing how this could be implemented without a doublemove...
Agree. Lets hope The Admin sees the common sense and removes this from the final ruleset.
Should I put the map forward i.e. is this game ready to start or do we need to wait something.
I think nothing map-related is left to be done. Maybe the civ order? Was it randomized?
r_rolo did randomize starting positions long time ago.
Separate names with a comma.