30% Iron Civer Tournament

[snoopy369]

True ... like that one MFCamillus and I have to take out the mummy in noob game next turn ... err, i mean, ...

But, in a competition I think they are inappropriate. Realistic they may be, but they lead to badness that should be avoided in a tourney.

[Rommel2D]

My apologies jshelr. This entire issue stems from my misunderstanding of what constitutes "trade". I'd assumed an embargo would block any sort of diplomatic exchange, including technology. The fact that exchanging techs is referred to as "trading" by most players and that they are often assigned monetary value and included in deals reinforces this misconception.

From what I gather now, a "trade embargo" is represented by the game mechanics as a removal of the embargoed Civ from the embaroers' trade network. There are no direct military repercussions, but as far as trade is concerned, the embargoed player is an "enemy" of the other two in the agreement. [As an aside: what does this have to do with making an agreement with another Civ? Why can't you simply declare an embargo as a soveriegn nation?]

There was nothing actually done wrong in the game, though I am forced to wonder why McMeadows did not "say what he meant" in the announcement and made it sound like a complete embargo, which generated the alarm in the first place...

[Rommel2D]

On the general issue of 'dogpiles' and massive alliances, my perception is that without limits on diplomacy (player communication), PBEM games tend to degenerate into Survivor-esque cutthroat popularity contests. Skill at playing the game is relegated a small portion of the winning formula, much like 'challenges' in the TV show. (Has this show been distributed to most media markets by now?)

I would hope that with good etiquette guidelines, diplomacy will remain a part of strategic gameplay, not the other way around. Of course, a silent game would accomplish this, but I'd prefer to not completely cut off open expression if we can find a workable alternative...

[McMeadows]

There was nothing actually done wrong in the game, though I am forced to wonder why McMeadows did not "say what he meant" in the announcement and made it sound like a complete embargo, which generated the alarm in the first place...

In the game itself there could not be any misunderstanding as there are no roads connecting any of the involved nations. Last night I have allready added "tech" to the declaration.

[McMeadows]

On the general issue of 'dogpiles' and massive alliances, my perception is that without limits on diplomacy (player communication), PBEM games tend to degenerate into Survivor-esque cutthroat popularity contests. Skill at playing the game is relegated a small portion of the winning formula, much like 'challenges' in the TV show. (Has this show been distributed to most media markets by now?)

"sitting duck" could be a TV show as well if bongo is not opposed.

[Aqualung71]

Seems like there's a bit of cat-fighting in the other games

[Rommel2D]

in the game itself there could not be any misunderstanding as there are no roads connecting any of the involved nations. Last night I have allready added "tech" to the declaration.

The point being if you were aware of 1-2d and the difference between exchanging techs and trading resources, why use language that described the wrong one? If the subject had been resources, would you have refrained from discussing it?

[McMeadows]

For me nothing has changed. I was not aware it all came down to the leaving out of the word "tech". I have never reconsidered trading other things than I can trade at the moment in the game, which are techs.
Furthermore I have never slapped around with etiqette, which for all I care, as I stated before represent just what we all think is to play the game in its spirit. I dislike bureaucracy. The pin pointing on rules, etiquette and things that have been written (literally) are not the way we should be going along. RL is allready full of it. The players involved in the game all want to play an honest, competitive game. A bit more focus on the intentions softens the edges a little.

Would we have been world leaders, we would have had a serious issue in the UN now.

Hmmm WAR it is Bongo... I'll have your AC's for lunch.

[conmcb25]

Very well said. I have occassionally looked at this discussion but have not really followed it very closely.

When I started reading it, it reminded me of all the arguements and rules "discussions" going on in the PtW ISDG.

Not good.

We are a family here, satisfy the intent of the rules, if you lose, you lose. Try again next time

But I for one wont be getting into any intense rules discussion. Thats too much like work and not enough like fun for me.

Originally posted by McMeadows
For me nothing has changed. I was not aware it all came down to the leaving out of the word "tech". I have never reconsidered trading other things than I can trade at the moment in the game, which are techs.
Furthermore I have never slapped around with etiqette, which for all I care, as I stated before represent just what we all think is to play the game in its spirit. I dislike bureaucracy. The pin pointing on rules, etiquette and things that have been written (literally) are not the way we should be going along. RL is allready full of it. The players involved in the game all want to play an honest, competitive game. A bit more focus on the intentions softens the edges a little.

Would we have been world leaders, we would have had a serious issue in the UN now.

Hmmm WAR it is Bongo... I'll have your AC's for lunch.

[Rommel2D]

I've redirected discussion of this out of the thread because progress of the games should not hinge on it. Even before jshelr cleared up the meaning of 'trade' for us (me), the discussion was not meant to disrupt any games. My only goal here is to clear the air on the subject of these etiquette options so that the final round (not to mention other games that adopt this code) can proceed without rule ambiguities hanging about. Should I assume everyone participating has a good understanding of 1-2 and will abide by it if agreed to in advance?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by McMeadows
For me nothing has changed. I was not aware it all came down to the leaving out of the word "tech". I have never reconsidered trading other things than I can trade at the moment in the game, which are techs.
Furthermore I have never slapped around with etiqette, which for all I care, as I stated before represent just what we all think is to play the game in its spirit.

Which is why most competitive events rely upon an external source for circumscribing accepted behavior, since one individual's assumptions inevitably bring confusion and conflict when compared to another's. The experimental rules in this tournament are an effort to surpass subjective limitations and arrive at an objective code of conduct that will minimize out-of-game conflicts.

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

Cheers...

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Should I assume everyone participating has a good understanding of 1-2 and will abide by it if agreed to in advance?

did 1-2 change?

[jshelr]

d) Players shall not make Mutual Protection Pacts or Trade Embargoes unless they are declared in the foreign advisor's screen.

Seems perfect to me. Can't do it until you have nationalism. Trade means what civ says trade means.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by jshelr
Trade means what civ says trade means.

To put a few more licks in on that dead horse...

Are people aware enough of the special definition civ gives to 'trade'? I wasn't, Bongo wasn't, and I had the impression that Flandrien and/or McMeadows might have been 'going with the flow' on the issue. Would clarifiying the language of 1-2 somehow avoid future misunderstandings?

[bongo]

Problem is that 'trade' has one meaning in single-player, and a much wider meaning in multiplayer. In the demogames 'trade' are used for almost any kind of arrangements.