"Spirit of the Game."

[classical_hero]

Just what does that mean? We have had a hold-up as a result of a possible breach of this clause. I say possible, because we do not know specifically what that clause means. So I think it is best for the game that we get this clause clarified so that we do not have this issue again.

 

[Provolution]

First of all, Spirit is a vague word, not unilaterally defined based on personal taste or standing within Civ 3 PBEM subculture and a certain social standing in that esteemed community. If this was the case, any words in the ruleset could represent a potential violation. We cannot have an arbitrary, unilateralist, preferential, unequal and etymological ruleset. Lawmaking is not twisting out the etymological or semantic meaning, but to agree in defined language what is acceptable and what is not. Spirit does not qualify for that.

We better find a technical word.

What about "A ban on Intentional abuse of in-game mechanisms in order to gain a competitive edge to other teams in an unfair manner"?

Then one needs to establish

Intention
In game Mechanism
Competitive Edge
Unfair Manner

In order to violate this law, one must violate all four points at once.
If no intention was established, no in-game mechanism used, no competitive edge gained or the act was conducted in a fair manner (equals not getting a competitive edge, but may be further defined), then there is no case to build on.

So I say, kill-off "The Spirit of the Game" (sounds too ideological, like Will of the People), and replace it with a more legally robust definition. Even if we play Persia, Iran or here the Nation of Irôn, we are not practicing theocracy, theological laws with loaded metaphysical content. We prefer secular law here, not some Civ 3 Shariah variety.

 

[Provolution]

"SPIRIT OF THE GAME" - A COLLAGE

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Oh, we certainly need to define SotG. However, we can't go around defining each word in the definition for SotG. That's where everyone comes in - you know what it means (to you), so try to follow what it says and don't do anything you know isn't allowed / will give you an unfair advantage.

I will come up with a definition, but just saying that Provo's is a *bit* too technical for me.

 

[Provolution]

Team TNT considers anything not covered in the rules as legitimate, so you can say we have a liberal understanding of it.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Ah, well do not forget this almighty rule:

4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to adhere not only to the written rules, but also to the unwritten, spirit of the rules. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

Please think about actions you (I mean everybody here) take and whether or not they break the fairness element and give you an advantage.

 

[donsig]

Oh great. We have to deal with SotR, too! (Spirit of the Rules). Was this ruleset ghost written by someone with a secret agenda to take all the fun out of it?

The SotG and the SotR, the rules themselves, are about competing fairly. That's the key term in the clause cited above. We have rules to guard against Civ III cheating - things like manipulating the save or using utilities to get information not normally available in the civ game. Such actions would be against the spirit of the Civ III game. Then we have rules to prevent cheating in the multi-team demogame - no trading of information until contact is made and no infiltrating another team to spy on their private forums. These are contrary to the spirit of the multi-team demogame.

It is not against the SotG or SotR to try to confuse other teams or keep them off guard. It's a part of Civ III that those who only play against the AI are largely unfamiliar with. While it is possible to confuse and trap the AI in some ways, this potential is far, far greater when playing against human opponents. Secrecy and subtefuge are integral parts of the game. Not only are they within the spirit of the game they are part of it!

I for one don't see the need for stringent rules regarding trading. If one team wants to take advantage of another by renaming things to make a dishonest trade I'd say it was part of the game. I'd probably also have been the first to fall for such a trick. But if the majority of the players and teams want fair trading rules in place then go ahead - but do it in a reasonable way.

Making a rule saying you can't rename things with the intent of confusing others teams is bad for two reasons. First, it goes against the spirit of the game in that it attempts to remove *confusion of other teams* as a legitimate part of the game. I've argued above why I think subterfuge is proper in this game. Second, it's very vague and there's a better way of enforcing fair trading policies.

In order to trade (or make a peace treaty, for the same issues arise there) the two teams in question should make a formal contract that spells out what is to be traded. It doesn't need to be full of legalese. A simple one would be:

Team A agrees to trade the city of Village and 34 gold to Team B in return for the technology Computers. (A screen shot of the city could be attached.)

The point is the trade is written out in English and agreed to by both teams before the deal is carried out in the Civ III game. Then if Team B renamed a warrior *Computers* in order to stiff Team A, the latter could go to the admins who would look at the contract and the trade and make the proper adjustments. A nice, clean and easy way to deal with the subject without placing restrictions on naming conventions. No muss and no fuss dealing with endless discussions about SotG or SotR. No bickering over what a poorly written rule means.

 

[Provolution]

I think the spirit word is not a very fortunate one in a ruleset. Is it the holy spirit? Or the Spirit of St. Louis? Or is it bottled spirit? For a rule four different teams have to live with, "spirit" is hopeless as a term, and subject to politicization and word twisting in an extreme degree, almost making a religious law out of it. Who is to judge what is good spirit and bad spirit ? If that is the case, it is hard to play, knowing that anything may be put to court under some sort of Shariah Law, depending on the tiredness, emotional state and so on of those making the decision.

We need a firm definition, or we can simply omit the term "spirit". We cannot replace "Spirit of the game" with "spirit of the rules" or "spirit of the people". No functional and fair system in the world uses "Spirit" as a guiding principle. We need a crystal clear definition with checkpoints, or we can as well forget the application of it. We cannot have a system where a subculture in the civ community force other subcultures to abide by a unilaterally defined "spirit". Then we can as well throw in the towel.

I will not confuse much, and will simplify the definition ginger ale found a bit tricky.

What about "A ban on Intentional abuse of in-game mechanisms in order to gain a unfair competitive edge "?

Then we got only three simple tests.

Intention
In-Game mechanism
Unfair competitive edge

Further, we can also define the spirit of the game to have an aura of "realism" and "authenticity", which is done by banning pre-meet diplomacy.

This is where the famous F11 key comes in. I think no team should be legally bound by what takes place in the F11 region of the game. We should treat it as it is, an in-game statistical engine, and nothing more. Since changing names is a built in feature, and not a mod, nothing tells us that F11 necessary has primacy over renaming.
It is the naming of cities and identity building over time that is part of the demogame as a social experiment, allowing teams to craft their own identity.

I think the identitybuilding and internal social experience of being in a team overrides the interests of the numbercrunchers specifically trained to read the F11. I for one, cannot read F11, and that is no secret. However, I have other skills, I am not revealing here, my team mates know what I can do.

Since there is disagreement on city renaming, we should either reach a consensus, or we should have a team poll. I am opposed to a hidden poll for all members for three reasons. First of all, teams have different sizes. Second, teams have different interests. Third, teams have the right to reach internal agreement in internal polls as part of their strategy.

Making this a secret poll, would only obfuscate the issue, be unfair, arbitrary and finally contribute to internal suspicion in teams. As we already have a healthy dose external suspicion as already seen, we need to preserve team cohesion.

I have come forward with no less than 4-5 compromise proposals, only to be rebuffed, so all I can do is to throw my hands up in the air and ask for a couple of definitions and polls.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Making a rule saying you can't rename things with the intent of confusing others teams is bad for two reasons. First, it goes against the spirit of the game in that it attempts to remove *confusion of other teams* as a legitimate part of the game. I've argued above why I think subterfuge is proper in this game. Second, it's very vague and there's a better way of enforcing fair trading policies.

Donsig, we are trying to edit the rule, not keep it word for word. The whole reason the renaming thread is up is to CLEAR UP THE RULE. Telling us how bad the current rules are now does not help, now does it? Working hard to have people tell you all the negatives is not fun.

Team A agrees to trade the city of Village and 34 gold to Team B in return for the technology Computers. (A screen shot of the city could be attached.)

The point is the trade is written out in English and agreed to by both teams before the deal is carried out in the Civ III game. Then if Team B renamed a warrior *Computers* in order to stiff Team A, the latter could go to the admins who would look at the contract and the trade and make the proper adjustments. A nice, clean and easy way to deal with the subject without placing restrictions on naming conventions. No muss and no fuss dealing with endless discussions about SotG or SotR. No bickering over what a poorly written rule means.

We already encourage all teams to document and agree upon all trades. But using your logic, why would they send it to the admins since they fell for a trick meant to (in your words) "confuse other teams or keep them off guard" since the SotR allows that?

Please stay on this topic of the thread everyone!

 

[Provolution]

What if the teams posted all conceivable actions they would consider unfair play, then we could vote on each and every action? I mean, the ruleset is pretty strong as it is, will full enforcement by two admins. I think the Admins should go to each and every team in the Private forums, and ask these what is considered unfair play. Then the admins can put together a poll on what to choose. I think The Spirit of the Game discussion never can be resolved, which is why we got 200 nations on Earth and some numerous religions.

 

[donsig]

Donsig, we are trying to edit the rule, not keep it word for word. The whole reason the renaming thread is up is to CLEAR UP THE RULE. Telling us how bad the current rules are now does not help, now does it? Working hard to have people tell you all the negatives is not fun.

We already encourage all teams to document and agree upon all trades. But using your logic, why would they send it to the admins since they fell for a trick meant to (in your words) "confuse other teams or keep them off guard" since the SotR allows that?

Please stay on this topic of the thread everyone!

What is off topic in my post Ginger Ale? This thread is about the Spirit fo the Game and my whole point is that the renaming rule is itself against the spirit of the game. Even if you CLEAR UP THE RULE it would still be against the spirit of the game in my opinion.

I have not posted in the renaming thread because I don't think the rule should be CLEARED UP. I think it should be just deleted. I also do not think the rule can be cleared up, another reason to just drop it. How I'm supposed to convince anyone that the rule is bad without saying what's bad about it and why I think it's bad is beyond me. No offense is intended towards whoever wrote the rules and none should be taken by them. If offense was taken I offer my apologies.

As for my *logic* you have to read the whole post Ginger Ale. I said, in effect, that in my opinion we don't need any rules to enforce fair trading - I think the tricks the rules are designed to prevent should be allowed. But, I also said that if the majority of the people or teams playing this game want to enforce a fair trading rule then so be it - and I went on to suggest a different way (besides the renaming rule).

Again, my apologies if this is really off topic. It just seems to me that a spirit of the game thread is the place to argue that a given rule is against the spirit of the game.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Sorry, I have nothing to say in response because this discussion is going nowhere.

I will leave it up to the participants of the game to agree upon a rule everyone likes.

 

[ravensfire]

If you'll pardon an outsider,

Tricks and treachery are part and parcel of diplomacy. So, however, is payback.

My suggestion is very similar to donsig's - anything goes. However, I would allow teams to always communicate with each other about the results of a trading session. Thus, if one group wants to betray or trick another, their reputation will be shattered. People WILL remember. The consequences can, however, exist outside the game as hard feelings persist. The excuse "Hey - it's all fair" is often heard, but rarely works. An approach of this type must consider both the positive and negative aspects.

The comments about it being impossible to create rules that cover every situation is correct. As soon as the rules do try to detail each and every situation, those that find ways around them will feel more justified in doing so. Creating a rule that covers common situations and gives a reasonable basis for all other situations is possible, but difficult. As above, there are reasons for and against this approach.

Best of luck,
-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

I agree with Ravensfire 100 %. As long as the game engine is not tampered with, forums not, inflitrated by moles (believe me, I can smell them through my USB mechanical nose plug) and no diplomatic actions before some technologies reached. Neither "spirit" or a "defined rule" is a guarantee that some creative situations may occur. However, bad actions in diplomacy may have a boomerang effect, as trust is hard to build.

I also think that only rulings where all four teams are involved should be kept in the open, and let the admins handle things discreetly, in order to avoid probing into national security intelligence out-of-game.

 

[vbraun]

I define something that is not in the "Spirt of the game" is something that could lead to the game being stopped. I think "spirit of the rules" would mean to not bend the rules yo your advantage.

If more of these fierce rule discussions happen I'm afraid we are going to kill the Spirit of the Game.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I agree with Ravensfire (thanks!) and Provolution here ... game engine and tampering really clicked with me. I will try to get some official wording (yours is nice Provo) and put up a poll when I find time.

 

[Provolution]

I think we better back off, me included of course, and let admins rule this out after this. That I can live with. The rule discussions must be done prior to the game start, not bent as the situation unfolds. I hereby propose no further rule discussion here, and let admins post team polls, to be discussed and polled internally in teams to preserve future external diplomacy.

Right now, we do not need vague legalese conflict material.

I felt we had to step in, as some of us actually like the rename part, and would not be forced to hand over information to unmet teams, in particular when these do not want to share city lists.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

A poll is up. I hope this meets everyone's expectations.