So what settings are we keen on?

[Lord Parkin]

Indeed! We could always just pick the Khmer, I suppose...

[Elkad]

Hmm. In the other thread, are we the "no vote" for spies?

Looks like we have a "Full", 3 for "with limitations",and a "no preference". But none of the votes listed on the other thread match that. They all are some flavor of No, and we don't have a single No vote.

Lack of spies is like removing all 2-mover units. Breaks the game IMO.

[Mist]

Yes you're the No Vote in the voting thread.

Even if you change your vote to full though, the setting stays on No because 3 other teams voted for No and 1 for either No or Spies With Restrictions.

[Azza]

WRT forum settings discussion, I think (B) is good because it encourages lurkers to register!

I would be fine with © and (A) feels too restrictive.

I think A is best for a game like this, since it prevents any accidental slips from lurkers. Let anyone in who wants to join the team, but make them to pick a team.

[Lord Parkin]

For those unsure what A, B and C are referring to, see below.

Forum access can be handled separately for each team. These would be the choices, which each team can make at their discretion:

A) Fully private, only approved members let in. This would be set up just like the CFC demogame. You must specify one or more team captains to be in charge of approving requests. "Global lurkers" would apply to each team that wants this scheme. (It's up to the captain whether to accept all requests or be more discerning.)

B) Open to all logged in users. Not visible without a login.

C) Open to all, even without any login.

Members of each team will be banned from all other team forums. In case B, this prevents cheating unless someone registers a sock puppet account. In case C, this prevents only accidental cheating (via New Posts or similar) because someone could just log out.

Personally I'm okay with whatever.

[HitAnyKey]

I also would prefer A. I know you guys here at RB have been doing the open lurker threads for awhile (or something like that), but I still can't easily get past the idea that people from the other teams could theoretically easily view the goings on in our thread.
I'll be happy to be one of the people to need to accept people requesting access to our forum.

[Sareln]

I also would prefer A. I know you guys here at RB have been doing the open lurker threads for awhile (or something like that), but I still can't easily get past the idea that people from the other teams could theoretically easily view the goings on in our thread.
I'll be happy to be one of the people to need to accept people requesting access to our forum.

I think since each team is being captained by someone with buy-in here already, that even the usual temptation to cheat is quite reduced. I think going w/ (A) just adds hassle & makes the game harder to globally lurk. I understand that a public reporting thread is a hard buy-in initially, but I think you'll warm to it. I know that I did.

[Herandar]

So, what's been decided and what is still up for discussion?

Decided: (Meaning 4 or 5 teams agreed)
Civilizations per team : 1
Starting Era : Ancient
Diplomacy : Full Private
Always War : No
Barbarians: No
Spies : No
Corporations : No
Blockades: No
Tech Trading : No
Nukes : No

Must say, I don't like seeing so much turned off, but I am clearly in the minority.

[Lord Parkin]

So, what's been decided and what is still up for discussion?

Decided: (Meaning 4 or 5 teams agreed)
Civilizations per team : 1
Starting Era : Ancient
Diplomacy : Full Private
Always War : No
Barbarians: No
Spies : No
Corporations : No
Blockades: No
Tech Trading : No
Nukes : No

Must say, I don't like seeing so much turned off, but I am clearly in the minority.

Maybe not the minority on this team... I know a few others aren't keen on seeing so much turned off either. But I think the majority of people on RB tend to prefer turning off a few elements of flavour in favour of balance. When you've played enough games and everyone's at roughly the same skill level, the more random/unbalanced game elements tend to become more obvious and pronounced.

That said, I wouldn't mind having more of a fun game with more of those things left on. But I don't think that's the preference of the majority.

[Lord Parkin]

I'll copy Seven's form here:

I suggest each team captain fills out this form before we proceed to getting our snake pick order. I am hoping that this will be quick and not require a full polling of every player, as there is a strong default listed for each case.

[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]
[ ] Our team is unsatisfied with the settings listed here and thinks ____ should be discussed further.

[ ] Our team objects to one of the following minor or assumed settings which were not included in the original ballot:
___ Vassal states off
___ Random events and huts off
___ Normal game speed
___ Difficulty/wrap/world size at mapmaker's discretion, to be announced before the pick
___ Water-ness of map at mapmaker's discretion, to be announced before the pick
___ Diplo victory enabled so as not to remove AP/UN, but using the victory vote in-game is banned
___ Communication with other teams is not permitted without in-game contact, including public communication
___ Turn order will be random and independent of pick order
___ Starting screenshots will be shown to us by Commodore before the snake pick
(Optional: [ ] But we withdraw our objection to any given item unless a majority of teams object to it.)

[ ] Our team has an additional proposal to make and wishes for a slight delay in finalizing the settings: _____

[ ] Our team has additional comments that do not require a holdup: _____

[ ] This form is biased and/or disenfranchising and its results should not be considered valid.

[ ] This is going to be great![/COLOR]

Anyone want to raise any issues before we get started with picking our civ/leader?