Double-Fun - pitboss game (14)

[YossarianLives]

Thanks for the update

Hopefully you're teammate's easier to get a hold of once the game starts

[Maga_R]

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.

Seems that most settings are decided.

Am I correct that we prefer/are OK with:

* All civics and religion switching mission banned, except in case the target player agrees We would prefer to ban all religion / civics switching missions, not only hostile ones. However, I don't think we'd be too bothered either way.
* Emperor difficulty (reasoning behind it was that since we have experienced players advice difficulty should be less forgiving for educational purposes) Following some vet lurker feedback, our team is leaning towards "Map-Makers choice" on this, or even Monarchy difficulty.
* Map - Plako's choice, Yes with the following requests:
+ discouraging early wars (that we all have time to learn something ) I think diplomacy and NAPs does a lot on it's own to discourage early wars. At least the possibility of an Ancient war would be preferred (personal opinion, haven't gotten Caledorn's input on this yet)
+ reasonably balanced, but not mirrored Yes

Anything else?

How about a double-move rule? Is that necessary, or just go with the standard "Don't be a jerk and don't double-move"?

Any rule for pauses / reloads? I think I have a decent grasp of what's acceptable here on RB, but since we have players from other sites maybe we should clarify how we want this to go.

There was a concession rule for PB13, do we want one for this game? If so, maybe we need an admin?

[/quote]

I think explicit rules are much better, as a complete rookie in CFC Intrateam Pitboss I was very confused by "do not be a jerk rule" as I often guessed wrong what it means in civ and was generally afraid to do anything not to be a jerk .

I propose the following additional rules:

Specific rules:

• No city gifting during war (unless returning to the previous owner)
• No city gifting for less than 50 turns
• Absolutely no double-moves during war (and turn before), no logging in outside of your half of the turn during war for whatever reason
• No diplo before in-game contact
• No changing production, research etc just after turn rolls (to hide what you are doing)
• No turning to AI
• Generally, no pauses and reloads, unless special circumstances
• No admin, "jury of the peers" instead (players' vote)

Reasoning for "no admin" is that it is both simpler and from what I was reading admins decisions that are not accepted by the players lead to the implosions of such games anyway.

I am looking for feedback what other situations we would like to avoid to maintain pleasant atmosphere? Are we OK with self-governance, i.e. players' vote on conflicts not covered by the proposed rules?

What is the concession rule?

[Maga_R]

Thanks for the update

Hopefully you're teammate's easier to get a hold of once the game starts

Hopefully .

If worst cames to worst, "Waiting for teammate's approval" is not such a bad name . It actually kinda stands out because of its originality .

[Caledorn]

I propose the following additional rules:

Specific rules:

• No city gifting during war (unless returning to the previous owner)
• No city gifting for less than 50 turns
• Absolutely no double-moves during war (and turn before), no logging in outside of your half of the turn during war for whatever reason
• No diplo before in-game contact
• No changing production, research etc just after turn rolls (to hide what you are doing)
• No turning to AI
• Generally, no pauses and reloads, unless special circumstances
• No admin, "jury of the peers" instead (players' vote)

Reasoning for "no admin" is that it is both simpler and from what I was reading admins decisions that are not accepted by the players lead to the implosions of such games anyway.

I am looking for feedback what other situations we would like to avoid to maintain pleasant atmosphere? Are we OK with self-governance, i.e. players' vote on conflicts not covered by the proposed rules?

I disagree on the no admin rule. We will never have any guarantees that a game won't implode, regardless of the presence of an admin or not. Having an admin just makes things easier, as most players are willing to accept the decisions of an admin - and in the few cases where players are not, then it would not matter if we had a "jury of the peers"-decision instead, because those same players most likely would not follow that either if they did not want to follow an admin. Plako has said yes to being our game admin in addition to making the map, so my proposal is that we take him up on the offer.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "No city gifting for less than 50 turns"? Do you mean that noone can gift a city to someone unless the recipient keeps that city for 50 turns? If so, it's easier to just say "No city gifting allowed - period". Either city gifting is allowed, or it is not. We should pay attention to how the rules are written, so that they are concise and clear before committing them - and I also believe we should keep the rules as simple as possible. I'm pretty sure noone wants this to game to turn into a game of "who's the best lawyer that can find loopholes in the rules". The K.I.S.S. approach (Keep it simple stupid) is the best approach to this I think.

Just my two cents here.

[YossarianLives]

Yeah, what Caledorn said! (but if things go wrong, it was his fault!)

More seriously, a "jury of peers" approach with full diplo can easily lead to allies teaming up to vote for the rule interpretation that benefits them the most. It's just human nature, even if we're not trying to do that. If Plako has agreed to admin, I say let's take him up on it.

[Maga_R]

I propose the following additional rules:

Specific rules:

• No city gifting during war (unless returning to the previous owner)
• No city gifting for less than 50 turns
• Absolutely no double-moves during war (and turn before), no logging in outside of your half of the turn during war for whatever reason
• No diplo before in-game contact
• No changing production, research etc just after turn rolls (to hide what you are doing)
• No turning to AI
• Generally, no pauses and reloads, unless special circumstances
• No admin, "jury of the peers" instead (players' vote)

Reasoning for "no admin" is that it is both simpler and from what I was reading admins decisions that are not accepted by the players lead to the implosions of such games anyway.

I am looking for feedback what other situations we would like to avoid to maintain pleasant atmosphere? Are we OK with self-governance, i.e. players' vote on conflicts not covered by the proposed rules?

I disagree on the no admin rule. We will never have any guarantees that a game won't implode, regardless of the presence of an admin or not. Having an admin just makes things easier, as most players are willing to accept the decisions of an admin - and in the few cases where players are not, then it would not matter if we had a "jury of the peers"-decision instead, because those same players most likely would not follow that either if they did not want to follow an admin. Plako has said yes to being our game admin in addition to making the map, so my proposal is that we take him up on the offer.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "No city gifting for less than 50 turns"? Do you mean that noone can gift a city to someone unless the recipient keeps that city for 50 turns? If so, it's easier to just say "No city gifting allowed - period". Either city gifting is allowed, or it is not. We should pay attention to how the rules are written, so that they are concise and clear before committing them - and I also believe we should keep the rules as simple as possible. I'm pretty sure noone wants this to game to turn into a game of "who's the best lawyer that can find loopholes in the rules". The K.I.S.S. approach (Keep it simple stupid) is the best approach to this I think.

Just my two cents here.

Hi Caledorn, I must have missed that Plako offered to admin this game. I did not want to burden him to much, but if he offered himself we definitely should accept.

Wrt city gifting - I think that completely disallowing it would be a bit too strict, but what I wanted to avoid were "exploity" city gifts - e.g. giving each other MoM city just for the Golden Age and such. What do we think?

As I said, my experience as a rookie player with the KISS rule was not good - on one hand, I was afraid to do many things I realize now are completely OK, on the other hand I did some things I now realize I should not. We are from different sites now so i think that lack of very explicit rules would be especially dangerous in such situation.

And whomever is the best lawyer would have huge advantage anyway, lol. As they say in US, "lawyers run this country".

[Maga_R]

Yeah, what Caledorn said! (but if things go wrong, it was his fault!)

More seriously, a "jury of peers" approach with full diplo can easily lead to allies teaming up to vote for the rule interpretation that benefits them the most. It's just human nature, even if we're not trying to do that. If Plako has agreed to admin, I say let's take him up on it.

Yes, that is true it can be popularity contest, although I trust in us that it would not be. On the other hand, even Plako will not force us to play if majority would not want to .

But I agree that if Plako indeed offer to admin, we should gratefully accept his offer . I either missed it somehow or it was in communication with Caledorn only.

[Caledorn]

I propose the following additional rules:

Specific rules:

• No city gifting during war (unless returning to the previous owner)
• No city gifting for less than 50 turns
• Absolutely no double-moves during war (and turn before), no logging in outside of your half of the turn during war for whatever reason
• No diplo before in-game contact
• No changing production, research etc just after turn rolls (to hide what you are doing)
• No turning to AI
• Generally, no pauses and reloads, unless special circumstances
• No admin, "jury of the peers" instead (players' vote)

Reasoning for "no admin" is that it is both simpler and from what I was reading admins decisions that are not accepted by the players lead to the implosions of such games anyway.

I am looking for feedback what other situations we would like to avoid to maintain pleasant atmosphere? Are we OK with self-governance, i.e. players' vote on conflicts not covered by the proposed rules?

I disagree on the no admin rule. We will never have any guarantees that a game won't implode, regardless of the presence of an admin or not. Having an admin just makes things easier, as most players are willing to accept the decisions of an admin - and in the few cases where players are not, then it would not matter if we had a "jury of the peers"-decision instead, because those same players most likely would not follow that either if they did not want to follow an admin. Plako has said yes to being our game admin in addition to making the map, so my proposal is that we take him up on the offer.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "No city gifting for less than 50 turns"? Do you mean that noone can gift a city to someone unless the recipient keeps that city for 50 turns? If so, it's easier to just say "No city gifting allowed - period". Either city gifting is allowed, or it is not. We should pay attention to how the rules are written, so that they are concise and clear before committing them - and I also believe we should keep the rules as simple as possible. I'm pretty sure noone wants this to game to turn into a game of "who's the best lawyer that can find loopholes in the rules". The K.I.S.S. approach (Keep it simple stupid) is the best approach to this I think.

Just my two cents here.

Hi Caledorn, I must have missed that Plako offered to admin this game. I did not want to burden him to much, but if he offered himself we definitely should accept.

Wrt city gifting - I think that completely disallowing it would be a bit too strict, but what I wanted to avoid were "exploity" city gifts - e.g. giving each other MoM city just for the Golden Age and such. What do we think?

As I said, my experience as a rookie player with the KISS rule was not good - on one hand, I was afraid to do many things I realize now are completely OK, on the other hand I did some things I now realize I should not. We are from different sites now so i think that lack of very explicit rules would be especially dangerous in such situation.

And whomever is the best lawyer would have huge advantage anyway, lol. As they say in US, "lawyers run this country".

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.

[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?

[Caledorn]

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.