Discussion: International Code of Laws (ICOL)

[Jon Shafer]

Okay, despite the fact that most of the governmental busy-work will be done within teams, there is some need for an international document to make sure every nation abides by certain standards.

Okay, so my solution to this is to establish a sort of international code of laws (ICOL). Unfortunately, the weight of the law rests solely on the dependance that each nation will abide by the decisions made by the international community. Penalties for disobedience of international decisions will be only the disrespect of the other nations, however significant or insignificant that is.

The document will have to include how polls will be dealt with (mainly), and generally basic rules that each team has to abide by (check my Rule thread for a rough sketch of what we need).

Okay, my basic outline is that each nation (team) denote one representative to the 'International Committee', that will discuss stuff, make decisions, and fill in their teams on what's going on. In addition to this, each team will also supply 2 members, and those three in addition to the three from all other teams will form the 'International Court'.

The International Court will rule upon certain failures to abide by rules presented in the ICOL. The decision made by the Court will be taken into effect by the team who's member (or members) the case was against. Failure to do so will involve dismissal of those members from the court until they decide to agree to the decision made by the court.

Basically, the ICOL will include the decisions we've already made, a standard for polling and how it has to be internationally accepted, and the establishment of some sort of 'international ruling body' to make sure overall interteam relations remain cohesive.

As always, input, ideas, suggestions, corrections, and lunch orders always accepted.

[Spiffor]

I'd like to start the discussion from the beginning, with a question :

What requires common rules, what doesn't require them ?

IMO, common rules should be edicted only when there is no way for an individual team to answer to a problem.

I think we need common rules to :
- Establish game settings (obviously), i.e big or small planet, random climate or not, PBEM or MP etc.
- Manage the problem if several teams want the same Civ, or if they want the same anything (name of Civ : do you imagine everyone wants to call its country Apolytonia).
- Decide how many Teams and how many AIs there will be, and the difficulty settings. Decide the composition of teams.
- Decide how to punish teams who cheat
- Decide how the game is passed from one team to another.
- Establish meetings among all the Demogamers (chats)
- Decide what mods shall be applied (probably none)
- Decide who gets to start the game and enter the game settings.
- Decide how these rules should be decided.

Generally speaking, the ICOL is about the meta-game, and doesn't in-game matters (such as a global reduction agreement or a worldwide declaration of peace). In-game matters are managed by the diplomats.

Most common rules concern only the period before game starts, except those who handle the smoothness of the game.

Rules who are to last during the whole game
Of course, I suggest the majority gets to decide (I favor 50% majority over relative majority, but that's not the issue)

Since polls are likely to be very scarce in the common forum once the game starts (except the "When do you want next chat" polls), I suggest we use a slimmed down version of the polling rules of the SP DemoGame to determine what is valid : discussion, neutral poll, simple or grouping poll, time limit. The no-repoll clause should run on 2 weeks rather than 3, because most polls concern what will happen in 3 weeks (or we completely forbid repolls)

About cheaters : we have time to figure it out, but here are my 2 cents anyways : once there is evidence a teams cheats, we make a poll among all players to determine if the team must be kicked from the game or not. If a 50% majority considers the team does deserve it, then it abandons the game as soon as possible.

About teams which don't keep up the pace : same thing, a poll with a 50% majority about kicking it from the game, after some repeated abuses.

Why 50% ? Everybody here is intelligent and knows expelling a team is something important, so I don't think anyone will take this votes lightheartly. It is possible to punish a misbehaving team in-game anyways : declaration of war, trade embargo etc.

If a poll is dubious for whatever reason, it shall be repolled correctly if more than X people coming from at least Y teams consider it invalid. This allows us not to have an international court of sorts, and thus to alleviate considerably the ICOL.

Rules which apply only before game starts
- Game settings. Decided by 50% polls. I'd like to mention that size of map shouldn't be bundled in the same poll as climate / planet's age.
- Number of teams : decided by a 50% poll
- Minimal requirements to form a team : several polls (number of players, availability etc.)
- Applying mods : through a 50% poll, and discussion if the majority acepts to apply mods at all.
- Resolving conflcits when several teams want the same Civ or the same name : discussion on a rule, then poll.
- Decide what teams get to play, if there are more would-be teams than free slots : a multichoice poll, the X teams with the most votes get to play.
- Who starts the game : I suggest we elect the one who'll do so. I've no doubt Trip has enough prestige to win by a landslide (if opposed)

Once these polls have been resolved (except if we allow repolls), the result is rock hard. If the one who starts the game fails to respect them all, the game should be restarted unless a majority of players want to go on.
There is no need to keep the decision-process of these rules in a document, since they have to be applied only once.


That's it, what do you think ? It's not a project of ICOL as such, just my ideas to get the thing done without too much clutter (i.e a judicial system )

[alva]

he guys, I'm not gonna do 2years of law school before i can comprehend any of this , ok!!!

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by alva848
he guys, I'm not gonna do 2years of law school before i can comprehend any of this , ok!!!

That's why I stopped going to the first Civ3 Demo game forum. Too much legal bickering.

In the Civ3 Demo Game I saw someone being put forward for impeachment simply because they phrased a polling option or two wrong. Silliness.

I don't think this game will get that bad because the team's can govern themselves. However, as long as this ICOL stuff doesn't get too out of hand I'm just going to ignore it. Most of the rules seem like good common-sense stuff, and if the only penalty for breaking them is 'the disrespect of the other nations'* then it won't concern me.


(* naturally, if some person or team blatantly cheats they should be hung, drawn and quartered, but if any peculiarity or minor infringement is an honest mistake then we should just let it slide)

[FrustratedPoet]

Another common-sense ruling we shouldn't need to vote on:
We play the game with 'Preserve Random Seed' switched on. Anyone objecting to this will be given strange looks....

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by alva848
he guys, I'm not gonna do 2years of law school before i can comprehend any of this , ok!!!

You didn't meet the True Challenge

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- Decide what mods shall be applied (probably none)

As long as nobody complains about people using graphical-only mods.
I saw stuff about that in the Civ3 demo game too: "But the rules say no mods and you're using sn00py's graphics! waahh!!!!"
Naturally these fools were shouted down immediately, and a good thing too.

PS. sorry for 3 posts in a row. I'll stop now. Did I mention I nearly have 1000 posts?

[Jon Shafer]

I suppose a judicial system isn't the most necassary addition, I just wish there was a way to punish teams short of kicking them out or banning them from the game.

It will be fairly easy to add the parts about what we can easily poll on (map size, team numbers, etc.), what we really need to focus on in this thread is how international team meetings, moving the game between teams, the order of teams, etc.

[alva]

@ spiffor:
that was a very scary experience

PS. sorry for 3 posts in a row. I'll stop now. Did I mention I nearly have 1000 posts?

well, these demo are good for postcount , some people actually reach *kinghood in just a few months, playing a couple of these

edit: well , I said kinghood, but after checking the profile it's actually near emperorhood

[GodKing]

Rule 1: Each team, when asked by another team, will provide a person to act as an international ambassador. They are to meet and discuss matters of international importance.

Rule 2: Everything else should be handled within each team.

[alva]

ahhhhhhh, now there are rules I can live with

[Admiral PJ]

Maybe Trips team (Lux Invicta) should act as a Policing team in some disputes, though we're probably biased.
Whoever is the policing team (the strongest) could control international law and disputes, a bit like a superpower.

AdmiralPJ
Team Lux Invicta (nearly definite title)

[Spiffor]

Admiral PJ :
Sorry, but I precisely think the ICOL is about matters which can't be resolved with in-game power. I don't think we need a "judge" (problems reguarding the ICOL should arise very rarely, so polls would be just as good), but if a judge was necessary, I suggest he would come from a team not concerned by the conflict.

[Admiral PJ]

It was just an idea I had about UN style policing Civs/Teams, but I agree there should be a Forum Code of Laws system to stop cheating and hacking/spying.
We could also have a separate Code of Laws for in game Conventions... Like Alpha Centauri, where if all civs voted to Ban Chemical weapons and Nukes they would pass that banning convention.

Slavery and Rules of War are other issues, although if we have AI's they won't pay much attention to a forums Etiquette.

Some time a multiplayer game could be tried that has the superpower idea, it would be fun (but chaotic) having the superpower legalising all slavery and nukes, then the next supoerpower (following the failed nuclear war) rebanning nukes etc.
This game isn't that time though.

If we go for a sophisticated ICOL system, we could have some Nuetral members of an Umpire 'team' that can look in all the teams private forums and see all their maps and actions, to enforce Laws somehow (issuing a UN resolution so other civs break off relationships, or removal of team members maybe if its cheating)
These Umpires or Judges would have to be trusted not to cheat, but if they are impartial and not biased this shouldn't be a serious issue.

I think the 3 person judge system could work, but for now we shouldn't make things very complicated. The Judges can just decide on cheating from other teams ( like seeing a tank army going directly for your undefended city- suspiscious if intel agency spys aren't active)

[Spiffor]

Admiral : OK, I understand what you mean now. I thought the ICOL as something completely different from in-game agreements (or laws), while you consider it could feature the in-game agreements.

I'm still thinking these are two radically different logics (one cannot be enforced by force, the other can), but as you said, we're not at that point of the game yet.

[GodKing]

KISS.

Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid.

Just remember this and whatever rules people think we should have (very few I think) should follow this credo. Let each team come up with there own style, and if necessary to monitor something between teams, then a member of all teams discuss. Decisions are made either as a community as a whole, or within the teams.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You didn't meet the True Challenge

What d'ya mean? We actually simplified and closed loop holes. I think...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What d'ya mean? We actually simplified and closed loop holes. I think...

The new constitution is well done and well thought out, but it still is an extremely heavy document, compared to the short 2 first posts of this thread

[mrmitchell]

Not keeping up with pace of game: In game trade embargos.
Breaking other rules as formed: In game declaration of war.
Playing ahead, or replaying: 66% majority poll on kick-out, or 50% majority poll on they don't get a turn for a few turns.

I like the "don't get a turn" thing because it doesn't kick out a team but it really hurts them in the short term and a little in the long term. It teaches 'em their lesson with a means short of lethal injection.

[Donegeal]

I like the Tribunal (three judges) idea where they have axcess to all forums. I also like the "no-turn" punishment. Allow the tribunals to impose no more than a 3 turn "no turn" max and allow them to propose to boot either an individual or team. Once the proposal is made, the players then vote on weather to boot or just ban from the team for awhile.

[Arnelos]

in-game embargoes may not be enforced by various players, however, because they may not be in their interests...

For instance, let's say - hypothetically - that you had a civilization, let's call them "France", that refused to enforce an embargo on another civilization, let's call them "Iraq" because "Iraq" was "France"'s source of oil - a critical strategic resource

[DAVOUT]

Or :
let's say - hypothetically - that you had a civilization, let's call them "America", that refused to enforce an embargo on another civilization, let's call them "France" because "France" was "America"'s source of bordeaux - a critical gastronomic resource

[jdjdjd]

we need to set the game settings, human civ's used, AI civs used, and then I say we let the game begin.

I say go with the GK plan beyond that.

As many have found out, and myself only recently, too many rules ruin the broth. Or something like that.

[jordie]

I think keeping it simple must be the basis of all rules and laws.
I think in-game punishments are the best like the no-turn, or simple gold-tributes or technology-tributes from the offending team would work best.

[GodKing]

bump

with the talk on the first page, I thought I would reserect this one from page 5.........

[Hot Mustard]

Thanks, GodKing.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks something of this sort is needed, however formal or informal.