The Ruleset for the game

[Ankka]

Are there any amendments or such things to the ruleset? If there are, please post them and I can then send them to the UN to be discussed on.

 

[Hygro]

GOD I DID TWICE!

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

Grainy Bo, in the other ISDG we had some"problems" involving some of the tatics other teams were using. Yes it is sad that we have to do this but otherwise other teams would take advantage of some of the little cheats.

 

[Hygro]

STOP IGNORING ME!

 

[Gainy]

I understand Emp.Napoleon, but I would still rather have some exploits rather than a whole set of **** rules (however well written up they are )

Another thing, i've got a few novel ideas I don't think anyone has mentioned yet...

I wish that ROPs, and all those kinds of diploatic agreements (military alliances, mutual protection pacts, trade embargoes), were against rules if not used fairly in the game. Also, I think that Privateers should be exempt. Or, better yet, Privateering should be sent to an admin who sends out that info later on.

 

[Ankka]

Hygro and Gainy: I'd like a more specific amendment to the part of the rules, so please show me the exact wording hwo you would like it to be instead of the currnt one.

 

[Hygro]

Diplomatic agreements must require the proper ingame mechanisms. Mutual Protection Pacts must not happen until nationalism, and must be signed in game. Military Alliances require writing, and must be signed in game. Both need embassies to do so ingame.

Similiar agreements such as a full on embargoes(no techs, gold, whatevers) would require you sign an embargo and then have the other part made official for all the other nations you have embassies with to see. Ocean right of passages would require that you have writing and an embassy, but you would not need to sign the actualy ROP because that encompasses land and using the other's road system.

Border agreements probably wouldn't be limited, but to make it official you'd need writing and an embassy.

Hell, maybe no diplomatic agreement is binding unless signed ingame. Something along these lines.

 

[deshelbr]

Originally posted by Hygro
Diplomatic agreements must require the proper ingame mechanisms. Mutual Protection Pacts must not happen until nationalism, and must be signed in game. Military Alliances require writing, and must be signed in game. Both need embassies to do so ingame.

Similiar agreements such as a full on embargoes(no techs, gold, whatevers) would require you sign an embargo and then have the other part made official for all the other nations you have embassies with to see. Ocean right of passages would require that you have writing and an embassy, but you would not need to sign the actualy ROP because that encompasses land and using the other's road system.

Border agreements probably wouldn't be limited, but to make it official you'd need writing and an embassy.

Hell, maybe no diplomatic agreement is binding unless signed ingame. Something along these lines.

I think this would be pretty much impossible to enforce and detract from the most interesting aspects of the Intersite game.

While I agree teams shouldn't be talking to each other before making in-game contact and shouldn't trade maps until Map Making, everything else diplomacy-wise should be allowed.

Choosing to also enact the in-game equivalent of a team's diplomatic agreement can become a bargaining chip for the out-of-game negotiations.

 

[Hygro]

That's a fair arguement. I'm glad someone actually responded to the points.