Defining a full double move ruleset?

[Yazilliclick]

OK so obviously it comes up a lot and it's always a debate and since it effects any game perhaps it's worth a thread to debate and draft one that could be used for future games and perhaps adopted by current ones?

I'm obviously not a very experienced player but I'll start it off with this and perhaps others and throw in things

Double Move Rule
- When taking action of a hostile (war) or competative (settling) nature each party must give the other party 1/2 a game turn to react to their move before moving again. This time does not start until such time as the reacting party can actually move units and react. If the reacting party has already moved that turn before this action then the 1/2 turn time only begins at the start of the next turn.

- The turn is split and neither party can take additional actions that could influence the other team after their time has ended by their half of the turn passing or by pressing end turn. This means that they are no longer able to take the following actions:

- Hurrying production
- Changing research
- Moving units
- Building tile improvements
- Razing tile improvements
- Spy missions

What I'm obviously missing is rules governing multiple parties at war. I'm thinking it should probably add 1/2 a time turn in the case of more than two individual parties in the case of a real 1vs1vs1. If it's just 2vs1 then obviously two parties should try to take one half.

What complicates it is then how it's determined who gets what half. Perhaps Party A starts a fight with Party B and then a non-related Party C starts with Party B but entered the fight in such a way that where Party A would normally be before B, C would actually be taking theirs after. In that case I would think that unless all parties agree on A&C taking a specific half of the turn it would need to be treated as a 1vs1vs1 situation and add 1/2 turn to the turn timer for the duration.

[Krill]

Start with something simple and then build up from there. What are tha aims of a double move rule? What is it you want to prevent? What should be acceptable? Figure out the answer to those questions first before you ever consider a rules draft.

[Dantski]

Well lets say there should be a minimum 12 hours (assuming 24 hour timer) between someone ending turn and being able to move (or hey even login) again.

[Yazilliclick]

Start with something simple and then build up from there. What are tha aims of a double move rule? What is it you want to prevent? What should be acceptable? Figure out the answer to those questions first before you ever consider a rules draft.

Well I approached mine on the basis of the idea that people want to prevent any party from needing to login continuously to monitor the other team to ensure nothing has changed that they need to react to or to find that they can no longer react.

Well lets say there should be a minimum 12 hours (assuming 24 hour timer) between someone ending turn and being able to move (or hey even login) again.

I don't see why they should be disallowed from loging in again. I know I logged in quite often just to remember where things were or take screenshots for my report thread.

[Ruff_Hi]

Start with something simple and then build up from there. What are tha aims of a double move rule? What is it you want to prevent? What should be acceptable? Figure out the answer to those questions first before you ever consider a rules draft.

Agree - declaration of intent (or spirit) underlying any future rules. Then we can employ constitutional lawyers who can argue about the spirit or the founding fathers intent. All jokes aside - we should start with the intent. I think that it needs to include words such as ...

: community
: equity
: fairness
: respect
: responsibility

We should also consider if we want to include items that we are against.

[Jowy]

I still think we should just ditch the double-move rules. What we are trying to prevent is less of a headache than trying to prevent that.

[Yazilliclick]

Ok well then

To provide equal and fair opportunities to all parties well balancing the requirements of participating in a game with the lives of the players by not requiring vast amounts of time to babysit the game.

[Twinkletoes89]

Agree - declaration of intent (or spirit) underlying any future rules. Then we can employ constitutional lawyers who can argue about the spirit or the founding fathers intent. All jokes aside - we should start with the intent. I think that it needs to include words such as ...

: community
: equity
: fairness
: respect
: responsibility

We should also consider if we want to include items that we are against.

I do agree with you, my only issue with using some of those words are that they are subjective and so they can be misinterpreted and argued over, which is the problem.

We need to try and avoid these grey areas if we are to get an effective ruleset

[Krill]

I was thinking more along the lines of: To stop any player moving military units twice before the competitor can respond myself.

[Ruff_Hi]

I do agree with you, my only issue with using some of those words are that they are subjective and so they can be misinterpreted and argued over, which is the problem.

We need to try and avoid these grey areas if we are to get an effective ruleset

Sure they are. But you still need to spell out the intent and then follow it up with very concrete stuff that backs up the intent. Examples are also very powerful to help illustrate the rule. Once these three items are spelt out (intent, rules, examples) and discussed, they should be voted on by the community.