Rules: Objections to Proposed Amendments

[BigFree]

Objections to the proposed amendments to the rules by other teams.

GCA and APO, so far, are the only teams to submit amenedemnts to the already proposed rule set. Here's GCA's objections. I'm inclined to post that APO votes to reject all of GCA's proposed amendments to the rules purely out of spite. But, I guess we should look at it objectively. So, what her do we object to and what here do we like/let stand?

I need answers in 48 hours. If no one posts here I will make my own objections based on my experience so far with how the ISDG is going and the current objections already offered by by you guys in other threads here.

The GCA accepts the current rules list posted above!
With a few exceptions.


GCA requests a team vote for the following issues:

• 0.2.2 (team switching, refugees)
  0.2.3
  • We would like to have a poll with options along the lines:
    - no team switching at all
    - only switching to the team that conquered your team
    - only switching to a team of the other group
    - certain max percentage (e.g. 15%) of team members allowed to switch to teams in contact with
    - switching after a certain time/turns to a team in contact with
    Furthermore one member pointed out to write down that every team has the right to reject any refugees that want to join.
  1.8.
  • We request the addition of amendment 1.8.1 along the lines of:
    "1.8.1. A to be defeated team may not gift more than 1 city per 5 turns and 3 cities per 20 turns to another team except the conqueror. "
  3.7.
  • This needs further discussion. Our team members object due to the partly vague and partly too strict definition of such a situation.
    The intent of war against a representative gov is always partly to inflict WW. We suggest rephrasing with "sole purpose of the war to inflict WW".
    Furthermore, some of our team object to the rule completely, argueing that WW is a reasonable way to harm the enemy.
    So we request a team vote in this issue and strongly suggest a polling of it in every team as well.

GCA objects to the punishment levels of the following issues:

• 3.1.
  3.2.
  3.3.
  • All of these issues can happen once by accident, especially the Go-To issue. A forfeiting of several turns for a single break is far too much. E.g. when moving hundreds of units especially on roads and railroads, I´d like to see the person moving them all without the Go-To command. And during that procedure it can easily happen that you drag your mouse one tile too far and your unit ends up moving before any other team.
    (I also think the description of especially the Go-To usage is far too vague, probably everyone will use Go-To when setting a new goal for his workers or bringing up units to the front. I think this rule should ONLY apply when used against another team, not in general! We don´t want to object to the general rule though.)
    
    We recommend lowering the one-time punishment to yellow level, possibly including a to-be-determined by admins. So that they won´t have to skip a turn or more when such a "misclick" happens, but can rule with more common sense, but so that they can also prevent the one-time deliberate usage.

Well, that is all from our team so far. We reserve the right to add other objections in the next few days though.

I frankly think we don't need any of GCA's amendments. But, that just my opinion, and possibly a jaded one at that. So, please, post your thoughts on these proposed amendments. I need input!

[GodKing]

Sounds like a load of crap to me. Just briefly scanned it though.

[Hot_Enamel]

3.7.

The way the war weariness rule is written now, the game admins are given complete discretion as to choosing when peace must be accepted.

The admins decision will be guided by the general rule of "preventing unfair use of the games mechanics to increase, exaggerate, or prolong the effects of War Weariness when waging war is not a reasonable option"

This is far better than putting in any specific rule which defines exactly how long you are allowed to stay at war. eg No fighting for 5 turns. Teams like GCA have in the ISDG, and will in this game abuse any specific rule like this to ensure a minor attack happens every 5 turns.

Reject any changes offered by GCA regarding this ruling.

I say, just keep the rule general. Give the admins the flexibility to make rulings as they see fit on a case by case basis.

[conmcb25]

Ditto H_E

I think we can say it is a genral rule to allow maximum flexibility for the admins to administer it.

And I would say what H_E said, we feel if there is a hard and fast rule like 5 turns then some teams may exploit this rule.

(And try to be nice about it BF, I know its hard with Lucky but just try for us OK?)

Edit: I should have said civil instead of nice, being nice is too much to ask

Try the subtle but direct approach, use what they did as an example, just dont name names, that will REALLY piss him off. Flank attack, sometimes thats better than the full frontal assault

The rest of the changes I dont have a problem with, and I dont mind polling the refugee issue, although I still dont understand what the big deal is.

[Kloreep]

Their polling requests for 0.2.2 and 0.2.3 seem reasonable assuming this has not had much discussion/polling yet, though I was fine with the current wording except for my proposed language clean-up.
And no problem with adding in that any team can reject refugees; that's a fairly common sense thing. I don't see the reason to add it, but there's certainly not one not to.

1.8: It seems to me this is similiar to the 3.7 issue. I can't recall the wording of this section, but I think the admins should ultimately decide on city gifting on a case-by-case basis rather than us trying to make one-size-fits-all rules.

3.7: agreed with H_E. Let the admins decide case-by-case.

The objections to 3.1 through 3.3 punishments: I really don't get how you could easily mess up on these, with the exception of the GoTo command. It is easy to accidentally click a tile farther than you meant to. But I would be surprised if the turnplayer did not realize this, and once they did, they could activate the units in the stack to cancel the remaining GoTo moves that cause the two-moves-in-a-row action that is the problem, and which is what actually violates the rule.
Edit: That said, I think they may have a reasonable argument on 3.3. Perhaps just give the admin more leeway on the punishment.

[civman2000]

I think they're being reasonable on 3.1-3 and would not object to a vote on 0.2.3. The rest is bad though.

Given that most teams seem to be accepting the rules, I think we shouldn't be too demanding for changes. The only thing I think we should defend vehemently is removing 4.1.

[BigFree]

5 teams have repsonded saying that they are fine with the rules as they are now or with the proposed amendments by both APO and GCA. That accounts for 7 teams. We are still waiting on the other 3 to either post amendment proposals or say that they are fine like it is.