Double-Fun - pitboss game (14)

[plako]

I kind of volunteered to be admin, when we chatted with Caledorn few days back. Not sure I'm best person though after the demo game fiasco, but if you really want I could give a ruling or 2. Note however that I won't do it, if there are even 1 player thinking that I'm not acting impartially.

My experience concerning the rules is that the fewer you can do the better the game. PB5 and PB8 has been best simultaneous turns games in this site with very minimalistic rule set.

[Caledorn]

I kind of volunteered to be admin, when we chatted with Caledorn few days back. Not sure I'm best person though after the demo game fiasco, but if you really want I could give a ruling or 2. Note however that I won't do it, if there are even 1 player thinking that I'm not acting impartially.

My experience concerning the rules is that the fewer you can do the better the game. PB5 and PB8 has been best simultaneous turns games in this site with very minimalistic rule set.

I think you would be an excellent admin, plako. I doubt your services should be much needed, as this is after all meant to be a master-teaches-newbie friendly game - but it's good to know that you are present if needed.

And I agree with your sentiment about the rules. The less the better. And the ones we need as simple and concise as possible.

[Maga_R]

I believe I told you on Skype, but we were talking about a lot of things that day and you were a bit stressed too so you probably missed it

Wrt KISS: I mean that we should keep the rules simple and concise without room for interpretation (your suggested double move rule fits the bill perfectly, as it also takes the turn before the DoW into consideration).

I don't think explicitly forbidding city gifting is too strict, but I am used to playing without city gifting, so I am probably biased. However we agree on it, if it needs a rule, the rule should be concise as to not leave room for any fancy interpretation.

OK, if you are sure about Plako offering to admin, great :big grin:. Must be my "emotional distress", do not remember it at all from our skype conversation.

You are probably right on city gifting. What about: no city gifting unless returning to a "previous owner" or as a part of peace settlement?

That is a clear and consise rule, but it has one major loophole : Two teams could agree on a fake war, and then gift cities as a "peace settlement". And loopholes like that are what I'm advocating that we try to avoid.

I think there is no way to avoid loopholes like that. Teams can decide to wage a "fake" war for whatever reason - how are we going to decide if the war is fake? I am afraid that rules like that act against more scrupulous players. Sure, we can have honor rule that say: "no fake wars". But then somebody says: "this war was not fake, I killed his warrior!". Sounds silly, I agree. But what if 2 axes were killed? Or 7? Ruling on cases like this can be a nightmare and basically impossible without goodwill of everybody involved. What is worse, the truth may be gray - omitting city gifting rule can be only partial motivation for the war.

So I think your initial instincts were very right: rules should be extremely clear and avoid vague notions like "fake war".
On the other hand, gifting cities as a part of peace settlement is very natural and I think it will be a bad idea to prohibit gifting cities in such manner.

Double moves should be punished with the deletions of the offending units at first offense, imho. Agree?

[Maga_R]

I kind of volunteered to be admin, when we chatted with Caledorn few days back. Not sure I'm best person though after the demo game fiasco, but if you really want I could give a ruling or 2. Note however that I won't do it, if there are even 1 player thinking that I'm not acting impartially.

My experience concerning the rules is that the fewer you can do the better the game. PB5 and PB8 has been best simultaneous turns games in this site with very minimalistic rule set.

Hi Plako, I proposed no admin as I so no likely candidate and did not want to burden you any further. You will be an ideal candidate, in my opinion.

I still think that very clear and detailed rules will be best for everybody - including admin . What I am afraid of is my personal experience - I had very different ideas what it means to be competitive or naive in terms of civ and it was very stressful and confusing for me that this terms were not defined, as I never knew if I am being "naive and non-competitive" or actually breaking the rules, trying to be competitive .

I think minimalistic rules only work among experienced players coming from the same culture - as in typical RB game - but would not be good for us.

For example, what would we gain but not specifying rules on city gifting? Almost for sure only bitter quarrels later. And let us not even think about specifying rules on double-moves ...

[Maga_R]

And I agree with your sentiment about the rules. The less the better. And the ones we need as simple and concise as possible.

I must strongly disagree with this one. The only thing I hated about our CFC Intrateam was lack of rules except "do not be a douchebag", that was interpreted by players in widely different ways and caused some rather unpleasant situations.

I still do not understand what is the problem with having the explicit rules? We will almost for sure will waste more time discussing the issue than coming up with a reasonable set of rules. Why make players constantly wonder what is allowed and what is not?

[Bowsling]

I don't think we should ban city gifting. The case of gifting wonders for their temporary benefits is offset by the negatives involved (destroying all the cultural buildings in the city, the risk of not getting it back, etc.), and the genuine uses for city trading are many (i.e. if somebody "accidentally" takes more than their share of land in a dogpile ).

[Lord Parkin]

Remember when you are Lurking a game:

The game is for the Players not the Lurkers.

As a Lurker you are a guest. Please be courteous to your hosts and not post anything in Player threads that could alter the course of the game.

Quoted for emphasis.

Okay, I think we'll write a basic story here for readers' sake. But most technical discussions will be in French so no point posting them on these forums...

what ????, you want me to discuss in english ????? on an english forum???? what ???? you want me WRITE in english ??? on an English forum ???


....

Oh, [ mode english ON]

ahhhh yeah i think i know what i have to do !! ... i think .. in fact i dont know xD .
seriously it's possible i prefer a french topic with yuufo. we will discuss !

[mode english OFF]

and now the .. QUESTION !!!!! :

Can we discuss in french in that spoiled topic ? that's more easy for me ( for yuufo i dont know he speak minimum 198 language )

Two key points:

• A screenshot is worth many paragraphs of text. Even if you don't write much (or anything) in English, lurkers will be able to understand a lot about what you are doing if you post a screenshot or two every now and then.
  
• Even folks who don't understand French can use free translation software gain a rough understanding of what you're talking about. It isn't perfect, but it usually works reasonably well as long as the writer uses correct spelling and avoids too many abbreviations and colloquialisms. If the odd sentence proves particularly difficult to understand, a lurker can always quickly query "is this what you meant?" or "what does this word mean?". So I say go ahead and write here in French as much as you want, if it means that you'll write more!
  

Double moves should be punished with the deletions of the offending units at first offense, imho. Agree?

Strongly suggest a reload to before the double move and a warning not to do it again. Experience with admining multiple games in the past (including an ISDG long ago) showed that deleting units is one of the quickest ways to bring a game to an end. Go for the path of least resistance. I highly doubt that anyone would double move for any reason other than an accident anyway, given the game is explicitly "no double moves".

[YossarianLives]

Yossarian, thank you for your opinion. By avoiding early war, I meant ultra early, as in capturing capitol with a single warrior. Alternatively, I would propose no war declaration before 3500BC.

Another option is to start everyone with scouts. This way no one has that early warrior to walk into a capital. It also adds the strategic element of making it more viable to start with hunting.

What is the concession rule?

I didn't pay close attention to the details of the final version, but basically a rule that if the majority of players declare in their spoiler threads that they want to concede to another player, then the admin declares the game over. This was done to avoid having to publicly ask for the game to end.

[Maga_R]

I don't think we should ban city gifting. The case of gifting wonders for their temporary benefits is offset by the negatives involved (destroying all the cultural buildings in the city, the risk of not getting it back, etc.), and the genuine uses for city trading are many (i.e. if somebody "accidentally" takes more than their share of land in a dogpile ).

I was also leaning toward city gifting being allowed. Except of two cases:

1) giving away most of the dying civ to a third party - completely changing relative balance of power. This seem to ruin may games or made "less deserving civ" a winner
2) repeatedly giving city back and forth between allies

[Qgqqqqq]

How would you police either of those?
Suggested rule: a city cannot be changed after owned (by the original Civ) for ten turns, or more then twice.
Simpler just to ban though...