Ruleset Discussion

[Sommerswerd]

Another thing I could call it is folks leaving a"horse apple" that I'm going to be stuck with later after they leave. Not an attack here, just IIRC you said that you werent planning on sticking around long after the game starts, and IIRC you did something similar in the last two MTDGs... So while I appreciate your opinon, also try to appreciate my perspective. You're working vigorously to ban all these things I like, but a year plus from now I will be stuck with all these awesome rules youve dumped in my lap while youve moved on to other things... like you've done in the past 2 of these... seems a little unfair. All I'm sayin.

So to me, what I call it isnt as relevant. Im less interested in making some kind of moral judgment on it as figuring a fair way to implement the rule in-game, so that after you leave I at least have some chance to undo some of these crappy rules

What if it's unanimous? Does that change your opinion at all?

 

[grant2004]

As much as I hate the ban on nukes, I don't see any way that we'd be able to change that rule, or other similar ones mid game. I see a unanimous vote as impossible. There's sure to be at least one team that will see the rule change as hurting them, and will veto it for strategic reasons. And as the other posters have pointed out, any mechanism that depends on a majority vote could be utilized as a way to harm a minority of teams. Imagine the rule change in the opposite direction, if a group of teams voted to ban nukes outside of the game, because they were in danger of being vaporized and hadn't built the UN to ban them in game.

A unanimous vote to change rules mid game would be fair, and I won't oppose something like that being written into the rules. Realistically, I don't see a provision like that ever being used though.

 

[Yuufo]

I have a question about ingame agreements.

If teams A and B decide to sign a treaty of eternal peace, and A violates the treaty by attacking B, is it a rule violation?
Or to put things differently : should the referee do treaties enforcement as if they were part of the ruleset?

 

[Lord Parkin]

I have a question about ingame agreements.

If teams A and B decide to sign a treaty of eternal peace, and A violates the treaty by attacking B, is it a rule violation?
Or to put things differently : should the referee do treaties enforcement as if they were part of the ruleset?

This has not been the case in any past MTDG's or ISDG's. If two or more civs make an agreement which one or more break, then that is their choice. The tarnished reputation from breaking such agreements is its own penalty.

 

[2metraninja]

I have a question about ingame agreements.

If teams A and B decide to sign a treaty of eternal peace, and A violates the treaty by attacking B, is it a rule violation?
Or to put things differently : should the referee do treaties enforcement as if they were part of the ruleset?

Not to mention that "eternal" peace is a shame to have at its own. Say "till all other teams are dead" is OK, but "peace and love till the end of time, no matter what" is just ... meh...

 

[Yuufo]

I can live with it
So long it is clear that treaties may be violated, fine to me.

 

[Kloreep]

Agreed with LP (and 2metra as well )

 

[OzzyKP]

Sorry for the delay on final settings from Apolyton. Give us a sec.

 

[talonschild]

Hey, don't worry about it. You're not up to bat quite yet.

 

[OzzyKP]

We'll make our civ/leader decision quickly though.

 

[fluffyflyingpig]

Well, looks like no one seems to be moving this along. Rules version 2 for everyone's consideration.

1 Out of Game Actions
1.1 -- Team Espionage
All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
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, or anything else deemed as deliberate espionage is not tolerated will be harshly dealt with.

1.2 -- Save Manipulation
Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed.

1.3 -- Pitboss Host
The Pitboss Host is located at IP: 178.17.156.11:XXXX. Disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed.

1.4 -- Contact
Teams making diplomatic contact (meeting privately to discuss the game, game-related deals, etc.) before they have met in-game is not allowed.

2 In Game Actions
2.1 -- Victory
The winner of the game is the first team recognized the winner by in-game victory dialog. All victory conditions are enabled. Permanent Alliances are not allowed.

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

2.3 -- Spy Missions
The 'Switch Civic' and 'Switch Religion' spy missions are not allowed.

2.4 -- Nukes
ICBMs and Tactical Nukes are not allowed.

3 In Game Gifts
3.1 -- Naval Unit Gifting
Gifting boats loaded with units or units loaded within boats is not allowed

3.2 -- Double Move Gifting
Gifting units to another civilization after they have moved or attacked in a turn is not allowed.

3.3 -- City Gifting
City transfers via the in-game diplomacy interface are not allowed.
Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

3.4 -- Heroic Epic Unit Gifting
Gifting units with the experience required to build the Heroic Epic to teams that do not already have unit that unlocks the Heroic Epic or have not already built the Heroic Epic is not allowed


4 Game Procedure
4.1 -- Turn Timer
24 hour Pitboss server turn timer.
The game may remain paused up to 120 hours after a post in the turn-tracker thread, at which point any team may un-pause the game so play may resume.
An official vote to 'continue sooner' may be posted by any team in the turn-tracker thread. Each such vote by a team will reduce the 120 hour extension by 24 hours.

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

4.3 -- 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.

4.4 -- Rule Violation Reporting
All rule violations must be reported to the game admin as soon as they are discovered.

4.5 -- 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.

4.6 -- Rule Violations
If teams fail to reach unanimous agreement resolving any rule dispute, the game admin has sole authority to resolve the dispute.

4.7 -- 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.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Thanks fluffyflyingpig. That looks pretty good, can't immediately see anything missing.

 

[DaveShack]

I can see gifting of cities as not being allowed, but is it allowed to give cities as part of a peace agreement to end a (non phony) war? Not saying if that's a reasonable thing to do or not, just asking for clarification.

 

[Mojoqmeyvam]

I can see gifting of cities as not being allowed, but is it allowed to give cities as part of a peace agreement to end a (non phony) war? Not saying if that's a reasonable thing to do or not, just asking for clarification.

It's one of the things being voted on. And if the rule is 'no cheese', then we need a way to define what is or is not cheese.

 

[OzzyKP]

I can see gifting of cities as not being allowed, but is it allowed to give cities as part of a peace agreement to end a (non phony) war? Not saying if that's a reasonable thing to do or not, just asking for clarification.

I would say that is a reasonable thing to allow.

 

[fluffyflyingpig]

I can see gifting of cities as not being allowed, but is it allowed to give cities as part of a peace agreement to end a (non phony) war? Not saying if that's a reasonable thing to do or not, just asking for clarification.

3.3 -- City Gifting
City transfers via the in-game diplomacy interface are not allowed.



I was hoping this was clear. Per current vote, no diplomacy interface city trades. Peace deal or otherwise. Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are fine.

 

[Kloreep]

Looking good fluffyflyingpig, thanks for getting this rolling again.

Regarding city gifting: it is indeed hard to define cheese. The rule as fluffy wrote it seems quite workable to me. If you're resolving a genuine war, you'll just have to spend some turns having the capitulating team empty cities being handed over and the victor running over and grabbing them. Once cities are in the right hands they then sign peace in-game.

Also, another thing we need team's input on is the map trading rule. WPC ran a poll a while back, I'll dig that up and post ours here tomorrow.

 

[azzaman333]

I can see gifting of cities as not being allowed, but is it allowed to give cities as part of a peace agreement to end a (non phony) war? Not saying if that's a reasonable thing to do or not, just asking for clarification.

It's reasonable in theory, but in practice way too easy to exploit. For the sake of clarity, a blanket ban on city gifting is much easier to interpret.

 

[Sommerswerd]

plako (the mapmaker) has called for the settings/house rules to be finalized, and I tend to agree with him. We have debated this stuff long enough for all the teams to cast votes in the Final Settings Thread.

So city gifting is banned for this game. Now that's decided, we can move on to other things

 

[cav scout]

I can live with it
So long it is clear that treaties may be violated, fine to me.

Hmmm... sounds like you are planning on breaking treaties. Thanks for the heads up!