Ruleset Discussion

[grant2004]

Plus, it's a very minor issue. Games are not going to be won or lost based on screenshot trades. Even if you learn the location of another civ or find out that someone doesn't have a particular resource, that's something that could just as easily have been conveyed in text (e.g. "Team X is south of you", or "Team Y doesn't have Copper connected").

I think it's far simpler to just allow teams to trade screenshots if they so desire, rather than potentially forcing admin interventions on a fairly insignificant and trivial matter. Teams will be naturally cautious about trading screenshots anyway - and even if they're extremely liberal with trading them, it won't yield them any significant advantage.

Overall it doesn't seem to make sense to make a rule banning the relatively unimportant trading of screenshots, which can be circumvented anyway by diplomacy in a huge number of ways with a huge amount of grey area which isn't really enforceable.

Actually most of that is the reasoning I'm using to suggest that we should have a rule limiting screenshot trading

It is a fairly insignificant issues in terms of the outcome of the game, there are a lot of ways around it, with verbal descriptions, and yes it is unenforceable. I don't think anyone has argued that screenshot trading should be banned because it's unfair or game breaking, and that we need an ironclad rule to prevent it. I think it should be banned because the alternative, discussing the map verbally, having a little more uncertainty, and a longer exploration phase is much more fun.

The rule does not need to be enforced, if someone trades an ASCI map, or even a real screen shot they aren't going to gain a significant advantage because of it. It's not something that I'd think is worth going to an admin over. I believe that an issue this simple can be handled by the honor system, with a minimum of violations.

I expect most people will obey the rule out of their own self interest, not wanting to give too many details about their own land, or land they want to settle. The rest will obey the rule because it takes two to map trade, and I doubt you'll want to approach another team with a suggestion that they break the rules with you, even if it's a minor one. That's not a good way to gain a trusting ally.

 

[Lord Parkin]

First thing first, I would really like to honestly thank to LP for trying to help and speed up the organization of MTDG3. I am sure it comes from desire this great game to start sooner than later. But I would like to point out that it is r_rolo1 as admin and Sommerswerd and myself as co-organizers of MTDG3 to set the deadlines and presumptions, as I am sure you all will agree that rules are something fundamental for a game and cant be overlooked. We need to hear from all the sites which are going to participate if they have ideas about the rules.

Just like the leader/civ choosing discussions dont needs to wait for the mod to be ready, it doesnt need we to have ruleset ready before actually the game starts.

I am encouraging all team captains/spokesmen to take active participation with discussing the ruleset to make sure we have the best possible rules before the game actually starts.

No worries 2metra. Though I don't think it's quite right to assert that only a few select folks have the "authority" to set deadlines. Things were stagnating and no-one was pushing for things to move forward, so I took some initiative to organize a few things and encourage quicker progress. Anyone else with the motivation to get the game organized could have done the same thing. Deadlines are needed so that things can get done - the important thing is that we get moving, not who gets it moving. As long as most people are happy with me helping out to organize the game, I'm happy to help out as much as I can.

Regarding this particular rules deadline, there's no need for alarm. The plan is that tomorrow, we'll make a revision based on all the feedback so far - anyone's welcome to write this, though I'll go ahead if no-one else volunteers. Once we have this revision, it'll be put up for a team vote. If all teams are happy with everything in this revision, then that's great - we'll be set. Otherwise, team(s) not happy with quite everything can suggest exactly what they would like to see changed/added, which can then potentially be incorporated into a second revision and voted upon.

Basically, just because we're making a revision and voting for it tomorrow doesn't mean it'll necessarily be the final version of the rules. But even if it isn't the final version, it'll certainly be a big step in the right direction - taking us a large chunk of the way there, a significant step forward from the current situation. To make progress, we need to keep moving forward on stuff like this and avoid stalling.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Actually most of that is the reasoning I'm using to suggest that we should have a rule limiting screenshot trading

It is a fairly insignificant issues in terms of the outcome of the game, there are a lot of ways around it, with verbal descriptions, and yes it is unenforceable. I don't think anyone has argued that screenshot trading should be banned because it's unfair or game breaking, and that we need an ironclad rule to prevent it. I think it should be banned because the alternative, discussing the map verbally, having a little more uncertainty, and a longer exploration phase is much more fun.

The rule does not need to be enforced, if someone trades an ASCI map, or even a real screen shot they aren't going to gain a significant advantage because of it. It's not something that I'd think is worth going to an admin over. I believe that an issue this simple can be handled by the honor system, with a minimum of violations.

I expect most people will obey the rule out of their own self interest, not wanting to give too many details about their own land, or land they want to settle. The rest will obey the rule because it takes two to map trade, and I doubt you'll want to approach another team with a suggestion that they break the rules with you, even if it's a minor one. That's not a good way to gain a trusting ally.

Fair points. Though I still think that it adds needless complexity for no real purpose - i.e. if some teams have fun describing things more generally without screenshots, they can still do that even if trading screenshots after contact is allowed. But as it seems there are two differing sets of ideas on this issue, the fair thing to do is probably to put it to a team vote after writing the first revision of the rules. We can then see if more teams prefer the idea of screenshot trading after paper, or screenshot trading after contact. Either way, everyone will be in the same boat once the game starts, so it'll all be fair.

I guess we have to remember that there are a wide variety of different players involved here, some more casual/fun orientated and some more competitive. Not everyone can be happy with every decision in that environment.

 

[2metraninja]

Though I don't think it's quite right to assert that only a few select folks have the "authority" to set deadlines.

It is exactly up to the game admins/organizers to set in stone things and to the participants to participate or not. Of course good game organizers will even encourage the participants to contribute game rules and ideas suggestions. And this is exactly what I am after - to be able to hear from more/all game participants. There will be 9 sites participating and we have heard from barely 3-4 till now. I am not going to dismiss the other 5-6 for not fitting in unnecessary short time window.

Things were stagnating and no-one was pushing for things to move forward, so I took some initiative to organize a few things and encourage quicker progress. Anyone else with the motivation to get the game organized could have done the same thing.

Please, please, I am not criticizing you for what you are doing, I know you are doing it in the game interests.

Deadlines are needed so that things can get done - the important thing is that we get moving, not who gets it moving.

Yes, I know, it is in the human's nature to be driven by deadlines, but just not so unnecessary short ones. Is it good if we make semi-discussed and less-than-half baked rules and be ready 1 month before the game actually starts just to have peace of mind that this point is checked out? I think no.

Once again, I thank you for the efforts and I do encourage all team captains/spokespersons to come up with rules suggestions/comments.

 

[2metraninja]

I alone will try to add few more rules for consideration and will comment on the currently proposed ones later after work.

 

[2metraninja]

Actually most of that is the reasoning I'm using to suggest that we should have a rule limiting screenshot trading

It is a fairly insignificant issues in terms of the outcome of the game, there are a lot of ways around it, with verbal descriptions, and yes it is unenforceable. I don't think anyone has argued that screenshot trading should be banned because it's unfair or game breaking, and that we need an ironclad rule to prevent it. I think it should be banned because the alternative, discussing the map verbally, having a little more uncertainty, and a longer exploration phase is much more fun.

The rule does not need to be enforced, if someone trades an ASCI map, or even a real screen shot they aren't going to gain a significant advantage because of it. It's not something that I'd think is worth going to an admin over. I believe that an issue this simple can be handled by the honor system, with a minimum of violations.

I expect most people will obey the rule out of their own self interest, not wanting to give too many details about their own land, or land they want to settle. The rest will obey the rule because it takes two to map trade, and I doubt you'll want to approach another team with a suggestion that they break the rules with you, even if it's a minor one. That's not a good way to gain a trusting ally.

 

[Lord Parkin]

If you're able to take on a more active role in this 2metra, I'm all for that.

I'm also in favour of all teams having a say. Creating and voting on a first revision of the rules in a timely manner encourages that team discussion, it doesn't discourage it.

 

[DaveShack]

I'd suggest calling the thing that is meant to keep things going without being binding a target, and leave the term deadline for only absolute "meet this or we're leaving without you" kinds of things.

I think the game admin(s) should be a lot more active in guiding the process.

 

[Yuufo]

Thanks for updating the spreadsheet, Lord Parkin.
My team is now gonna vote on the missing points.

As for the ruleset, I think it would be too complicated to call for an internal vote on each rule. I see no extravagant rules so far. We could adapt ourselves to the chosen ruleset.
A global yes/no vote on the final ruleset would be fine to me.

 

[DaveShack]

I would suggest team votes on the final ruleset (in its entirety) of the form:

YES, agree to all points
Conditional yes, agree on some things disagree on (list conditions)
No, disagree

This allows teams to either vote NO if they disagree strongly enough to hold up the game, or conditional if there is something they can live with but would like to improve.

The game cannot start with these teams if there are any NO votes. It could start with some conditional votes, with the hope that remaining issues can be resolved.

 

[talonschild]

Seconded. Good system.

Upon reflection it reminds me of Apostolic Palace resolution votes: Yes, No, or NEVER!

 

[Kloreep]

WPC would like to see a rule along these lines:

Only one team will be declared the winner of the game. Joint victories are not permitted.

 

[grant2004]

the fair thing to do is probably to put it to a team vote after writing the first revision of the rules. We can then see if more teams prefer the idea of screenshot trading after paper, or screenshot trading after contact. Either way, everyone will be in the same boat once the game starts, so it'll all be fair.

Agreed, whichever way we go with the map trading rule, I don't think it's anything to hold up the rest of the rule set over. A team vote on this as a separate item would resolve the issue completely.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't see a need to get into any power struggle over the rules/votes etc., and who gets to set the deadlines and whatnot. We will have plenty of time for power struggles In-game. Whoever is taking the initiative on things to keep things moving forward is the man AFAIAC. If something is not going the way the "select few" think it should, then we will step in, but otherwise, I am fine with how things are developing. "To be the Man, you gotta BEAT the Man", as the saying goes. TBH, the way I have interpreted ALL the deadlines and such is that they are SUGGESTED not mandatory anyway.

For example, if CDZ (or some other site) showed up right now with a team and wanted to join, we are going to let them in the game and accomodate them, period. If we pick leader/civs and after the picking is done we decide on some setting that makes a team feel their civ/leader choice was undermined, we are going to talk about it and make sure that team feels like they are getting a fair shake. Hell, if they want to switch to a different choice that is available, we can talk about that too.

As I have said before I really appreciate all the hard work and effort and most importantly TIME that LP, and EVERYONE is devoting to make this game happen. Everyone knows that the game is going to last a year plus, so spending an additional month or two (or three) making sure that we get off to the right kind of start is not going to change much. If it were just up to me unilaterrally, we would debate all the settings until I got all the ones I wanted, but that is not very Democratic, or fair. At some point, we have to comprimise, reach consensus, make a decision etc., but we also are not going to rush this. Anyone who throws up his hands and says "Arrgh, this is taking too long to start! I'm out!" was not going to make it for the long haul anyway.

As for the rules and things that no one has spoken up on. We voted by-and large for MAPMAKER'S CHOICE right? So really, any settings that no team speaks up on should just be up to the mapmaker, to decide what he feels goes best with the Map he has designed. Its enough of a pain that he has to make and remake and then edit and revise and re-revise the map according to settings that are still fluid. We dont need to further burden the process with artificial votes on things that no one really seems to care much about.

 

[Sommerswerd]

One rule I would like to see is a procedure for changing the rules or adding rules as needed (or desired) mid game. Even by supermajority (2/3) vote seems OK. This is a little different from the "resolving disputes" thing.

Based on previous experience, it is possible that the composition of the teams 3-6 months from now and certainly a year from now will be very different from what it is now. An example I had in mind, is that we will probably ban nukes in this game based on the fact that most people currently signed up to play like that idea. However, by the time nukes become a factor in the game, most of these people will have lost interest. I would like some mechanism to re-allow nukes for example, when and if the teams get down to just the few people playing the turns, and those guys all agree to allow them.

 

[Mojoqmeyvam]

One rule I would like to see is a procedure for changing the rules or adding rules as needed (or desired) mid game. Even by supermajority (2/3) vote seems OK. This is a little different from the "resolving disputes" thing.

Based on previous experience, it is possible that the composition of the teams 3-6 months from now and certainly a year from now will be very different from what it is now. An example I had in mind, is that we will probably ban nukes in this game based on the fact that most people currently signed up to play like that idea. However, by the time nukes become a factor in the game, most of these people will have lost interest. I would like some mechanism to re-allow nukes for example, when and if the teams get down to just the few people playing the turns, and those guys all agree to allow them.

Shouldn't the game admin have the power to determine if the rules need to be changed due to unforseen circumstances? It sounds like what you're proposing would enable this kind of scenario:
Team A is running away with the game.
Teams B-F agree secretly to remove the Civics/Religion Swap missions, and spy bonk Team A into junk for the rest of the game. Team A had been planning their entire game based on the rules as written, and the rest of the teams decided to dogpile them both in-game and in the rulebook.

If the rules have to be changed, they need to be unanimous or under the power of the game admin. If they're not unanimous, then the rules become a diplomatic tool and not the rules of the game.

 

[Lord Parkin]

House rules have to stick for the entire length of the game. We've agreed to ban certain things for a reason, in the relatively unbiased pre-game environment where nobody knows where they'll end up. You can't allow changing the house rules when you get to a point in the game where it would be advantageous to do so - that's just rife for abuse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

House rules decided at the beginning of the game by a majority vote of people... 90%+ of whom will be long gone by the time the rule comes into effect ... but still be effective on players present at the end of the game, the vast majority of whom oppose the rule

As I said... As one of those players who will be around until the end... What I would like to see is...

 

[Mojoqmeyvam]

House rules decided at the beginning of the game by a majority vote of people... 90%+ of whom will be long gone by the time the rule comes into effect ... but still be effective on players present at the end of the game, the vast majority of whom oppose the rule

How many games allow you to change the rules mid-stream? If there's a problem with the rule-set, then that should be up to the game admin if something isn't covered by the rules (e.g., the MTDG1 discovery that you could quit from a bad event), or it's a unanimous decision.

If one team bases their entire game plan on an Espionage Economy, what stops the other 8 teams from deciding to just ban spies? If the other 8 teams want that one team to fail, then they should dogpile that team, not pull the rug from under them in the forum.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Call it for what it is: You want diplomacy to be able to change the fundamental game rules we're agreeing on.

(Also, I find it odd that you consider minority opinions will become "vast majority" opinions by the end of the game.)

House rules have to be considered just as binding as checking a game setting. Imagine if tech trading had to be banned by a house rule... at a certain point, it is inevitable that a block of players will decide they'd do better with it enabled. If you let them reverse the ban, the whole game falls apart.

Unbanning nukes when Manhattan comes around, or unbanning civic/religion switches when your Spies are in place, or unbanning city gifting when you want to trade cities, is no different. It breaks the game people signed up for when things which were banned can be unbanned on a whim.