When do we allow reloads for mistakes?

[Caledorn]

While I personally think this reload should be allowed, as it was a gamebreaker for the Amazons, the thought of an alliance in the game "forcing" through a reload on a majority vote is frightening. However, I trust the game admins will make a fair call on whether it can be a potentially game-disrupting reload or not.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I don't think you really matter here though, for the game rules. The game has it's own admins in DaveMcW and classical_hero. Let them get blamed for everything

The forum stuff, obviously, it's never nice to have to wade through flame wars.

The game and the rules of the game are the responsibility of the game-admins, but the way the members post on this forum is the responsibility of the forum moderators. I don't interfere with game-rules and agreements as long as they don't interfere with the spirit of the forum or go against the forum rules. As soon as that happens or there is a threat it will happen I take my responsibility.

(..) Also, I found the suggestion about moderation completely out of left field and if not annoyingly patronizing, not something I would want to consider. I've never seen anything like that suggestion in dozens of other cfc subforums (don't think I've ever seen the rules on a forum games game set or posters barred from participating by the moderators, even if one would want that, it just isn't consistent with anything I've ever seen) and I'd do whatever I could to keep this game/discussion running elsewhere if needed.

In all CFC sub-forums the forum rules apply.

I suggest game admins get veto power over reloads.(..)

I'm fine with everything the teams and the admins decide and agree upon, on any game rules, as long as it avoids creating a situation which goes against the forum rules or civilized posting. If the teams and the game-admins get an agreement on this and you all accept the consequences and act on it civilized I have no reason to object.

However, votes and vetos by teams is a system that is so easily abusable (for instance, allied teams or warring teams directly benefitting from allowing or vetoing a reload request, so they decide to vote strategically in these matters) with the build-in risk of leading to a spoiled mood in the forum, that team-votes/vetos just isn't an allowable option.

 

[Calis]

I agree that vetos should be a sole privilege of the game admins...

 

[Indiansmoke]

I can agree to admins beeing responsible for taking decisions on issues not covered in the rules, after hearing what all teams have to say.

What I cannot agree on is teams voting on such issues after the game has started.

 

[Calis]

I can agree to admins beeing responsible for taking decisions on issues not covered in the rules, after hearing what all teams have to say.

What I cannot agree on is teams voting on such issues after the game has started.

I might be wrong, but as the Monarch of your game you decide on behalf of your team on your own, right? Furthermore, I think you were not here, when the topic came up. Should everybody wait for one person, just because he is the only one to decide things for his team? Maybe in such cases you should have some substitute, some deputy king

 

[Krill]

The game and the rules of the game are the responsibility of the game-admins, but the way the members post on this forum is the responsibility of the forum moderators. I don't interfere with game-rules and agreements as long as they don't interfere with the spirit of the forum or go against the forum rules. As soon as that happens or there is a threat it will happen I take my responsibility.
In all CFC sub-forums the forum rules apply.

That was what I said, right?

However, votes and vetos by teams is a system that is so easily abusable (for instance, allied teams or warring teams directly benefitting from allowing or vetoing a reload request, so they decide to vote strategically in these matters) with the build-in risk of leading to a spoiled mood in the forum, that team-votes/vetos just isn't an allowable option.

My advice (as a lurker) would be no majority votes for this reason: either unanimous vote or let the admins decide. But a rule is always smart.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I might be wrong, but as the Monarch of your game you decide on behalf of your team on your own, right? Furthermore, I think you were not here, when the topic came up. Should everybody wait for one person, just because he is the only one to decide things for his team? Maybe in such cases you should have some substitute, some deputy king

There was a discussion on the issue and despite the role playing thing, we do discuss alot of things. Most propably we would have said yes reload no problem.

The fuss I am making is not about the actual reload in this case but on the way the issue was handled that sets precedent for future cases.

On the waiting issue, the incident happened on a weekend and I was back in the forums in about 40 hours from when it happened. Considering we allow about 48 hours for every turn, waiting 40 hours to hear what a team has to say on a reloading issue is not irrational.

This is a slow moving game, turns take more than 2 days usually and all of a sudden you are annoyed that we did not reply to this issue asap?

 

[Calis]

I am NOT annoyed at all. Please don't get me wrong. I am NOT intending to offend you.

I think there voted enough teams to allow the reload before you returned. So I am not sure why you are unhappy.

Of course every teams voice/vote is important. Just as a matter of fact, in this case your teams vote was not decisive any more. And again, this is not meant disrespectfull, just a fact of counting votes.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..) My advice (as a lurker) would be no majority votes for this reason: either unanimous vote or let the admins decide. But a rule is always smart.

Not getting an unanimous vote = a veto. Either the game-admins decide on a reload or get a teams-agreement to:

* never have reloads.
OR
* set specifications for when a reload is ok in advance.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I am NOT annoyed at all. Please don't get me wrong. I am NOT intending to offend you.

I think there voted enough teams to allow the reload before you returned. So I am not sure why you are unhappy.

Of course every teams voice/vote is important. Just as a matter of fact, in this case your teams vote was not decisive any more. And again, this is not meant disrespectfull, just a fact of counting votes.

That is exactly what I am saying. This issue should not have been decided by a team vote

It should be either unanimus or admin decision or like Rik says no reloads at all (the predifined reload cases are maybe alot to cover?) .

So now for the future as I said I am OK with admin to decide after they hear what the involved parts have to say first

And so that we are clear...in football you have a referree that decides...this does not mean that the players are not allowed to protest screaming at him...they get their yellow card and relax....so sometimes, as many football players do, I prefer to scream and get it out of my system, get my yellow card and get on with it!

Rik should know with the dutch team protesting the goal as an offside when it was not

 

[Calis]

Rik should know with the dutch team protesting the goal as an offside when it was not

Now you are risking to get a ban

But enough off topic...

 

[Earthling]

In all CFC sub-forums the forum rules apply.

A) That has nothing to do with anything contrary to what I wrote, though the statement before it somewhat addressed things, it clearly is not consistent with other moderators' policies. Again, if so, entire segments of forum games and stories and so on must be shut down, because they allow or encourage lying, (to a far greater degree than anything in this game, by the way) and are thus against the spirit of the forum. In fact, in this particular demogame if there was a need to step in to stop arguing or something, it should have been done long ago - where was all this when the game rules were voted on in the first place, or game admins removed the Great Lighthouse, for instance, causing a lot of "debate" in the forum? The timeout system is just as annoying/resent-inducing as a rule on reloads would be from the perspective of the forum.

B) Are you actually on one of the teams in this game? If so, that would clear some things up I guess.

 

[whb]

However, votes and vetos by teams is a system that is so easily abusable (for instance, allied teams or warring teams directly benefitting from allowing or vetoing a reload request, so they decide to vote strategically in these matters) with the build-in risk of leading to a spoiled mood in the forum, that team-votes/vetos just isn't an allowable option.

Hang on ... policing the forum rules is one thing; outlawing things that might eventually lead to a spoiled mood that might eventually lead to someone breaking a forum rule sounds like quite another. That's trying to build a hedge around the law.

If the rules of the game are not those that the players or even game-admins agree, but are imposed by fiat by a forum moderator after the game has started, then that really does spoil my mood!

 

[Rik Meleet]

Moderator Action: I've made myself clear - either you as teams agree under which conditions you allow reloads or we will have to decide for you. I suggest you start conctructively debating those conditions (as that's what this thread is created for).

And this ends the debate on the forum moderators' role.

 

[whb]

Moderator Action:
And this ends the debate on the forum moderators' role.

Rik, this is probably going to come across as irritatingly pedantic, but CivFanatics hosts the forum, not the game. Technically, it isn't actually possible for the moderator to police whether a reload occurs on the game running on DaveShack's computer or not. There just aren't the mod buttons for that.

The point I'm making in a clumsily pedantic way is that there has to be clear separation between forum (how people conduct themselves when posting) and game (how the players and referee decide to interact on the game machine that the game-host has kindly let us all play on).

And so far as people's conduct on the forum is concerned, I think everyone has been very restrained, considered, and reasonable in the way we have discussed the issues.

Moderator Action: No more of this.
Discuss the topic (When do we allow reloads for mistakes?) from here on.
WHB: read my PM.
- Rik

 

[DaveShack]

Back to the topic of this thread.

I propose that reload requests go to the admins, who verify that the reload is for a significant (game-changing), and unintended event. The admins can request a pause to gather information, which does not count in any team's timeout imit; grant the reload using available information without requesting a pause; deny the reload without requesting a pause.

Partial list of significant game-changing events: (generally things that can go wrong with one click or one keypress) This is just a guideline, the admins decide whether each incident is plausibly an accident and if it is game-changing.

• Settling a city far away from its intended location
• Declaring war when there was no intent to do so
• Using a GP for other than the intended action (bulb vs academy, etc)

 

[BCLG100]

Back to the topic of this thread.

I propose that reload requests go to the admins, who verify that the reload is for a significant (game-changing), and unintended event. The admins can request a pause to gather information, which does not count in any team's timeout imit; grant the reload using available information without requesting a pause; deny the reload without requesting a pause.

Partial list of significant game-changing events: (generally things that can go wrong with one click or one keypress) This is just a guideline, the admins decide whether each incident is plausibly an accident and if it is game-changing.

• Settling a city far away from its intended location
• Declaring war when there was no intent to do so
• Using a GP for other than the intended action (bulb vs academy, etc)

I agree with the jist of this post however i disagree with your final two stars. With regards to the accidental decleration this can easily be sorted via diplomacy (or not if the case may be) and with regards to the GP i do think that this is stretching the need for a reload too far. There has to be some acceptance of responsibility when being the turn player.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Back to the topic of this thread.

I propose that reload requests go to the admins, who verify that the reload is for a significant (game-changing), and unintended event. The admins can request a pause to gather information, which does not count in any team's timeout imit; grant the reload using available information without requesting a pause; deny the reload without requesting a pause.

Partial list of significant game-changing events: (generally things that can go wrong with one click or one keypress) This is just a guideline, the admins decide whether each incident is plausibly an accident and if it is game-changing.

• Settling a city far away from its intended location
• Declaring war when there was no intent to do so
• Using a GP for other than the intended action (bulb vs academy, etc)

Seems reasonable... I might subtract the word "far" from the first event... because you might accidentally settle on top of a resource that you did not intend to settle on top of, or not settle on a hill that you intended to settle on... but I like the rule overall.

@ BCLG100 - I understand the principle of holding players responsible for their actions in MP games, but why hold a whole team responsible because the only person available to play the turn at the time was not careful/ made a mistake/ did not have his glasses on/ had some real life event that screwed up the turn? I would rather have the team be rewarded for good planned actions, and punished for poor planned actions, as opposed to for example... my whole team being punished for me accidentally screwing up the turn. I will readily admit that I am not as skilled, experienced or careful player as Indiansmoke, or yourself... does that mean that my TEAM should automatically lose?...Why? Because Indiansmoke joined Merlot instead of my team...

If your response is... 'too bad, get another turnplayer,' then I would say that is sort of like saying... "Well, no matter how good at planning out your actions your team might be, if you happen to have a sucky, clumsy player like Sommerswerd, then you lose... You better find someone that is able to chain themselves to the computer in an airtight, double locked, soundproof panic-room to be turnplayer, or else your whole team is liable for their poor choice of turnplayer.

I realize that alot of the above is hyperbole, but I hope you get my drift...

My point is that the MAIN legitimate issue when someone asks for a reload, should be... "Is this person/team intentionally trying to use a reload to abuse the process, or 'game' the system?" If the answer is yes, then they should be denied, but if not, their request should be granted. All the talk about 'where to draw the line' and 'dangerous precedents' the rule being 'open for abuse' etc., is based on the assumption that reloads will be abused. Since that is really the bottom line/what seems to truly worry people, maybe the rule should just focus on that, instead on a bunch of hypothetical situations.

That's why I like DaveShack's rule... it let's the admins (who can see all the forums) make the call. I would even agree with making the request anonymous, as Ash88 suggested earlier. That way there is nothing to argue about. The decision is made, and the game moves on smoothly (hopefully).

 

[DaveShack]

All the talk about 'where to draw the line' and 'dangerous precedents' the rule being 'open for abuse' etc., is based on the assumption that reloads will be abused.

Couldn't say it better myself.

 

[BCLG100]

Just taking the part Dave is quoting, the simple answer is that it is not. Regardless of the system being abused the potential of turns being constantly reloaded will lead to decreased activity in the game.

I'm quite sure that the majority of players will have attempted the GOTM at somepoint in time, reloads are not allowed there so where has this assumption that they are a guaranteed right emanated from that some now wish a reload to occur for every minor mistake. With regards to a reload what happens if both admins go on holiday? do we have to wait until they get back before we can restart the game. There needs to be a hard and fast rule so people can understand what they are and live with any consequences, having reloads only avaliable for incorrect settling is the only one I can see that could warrant it (even then most of us on team cdz do not but we notice which way the wind is blowing).