Teams that are Allies.....

[BigFree]

Should a team, that may have allies, allow another team to view their game?

That is, would it be ethical to let another team have access to the game save as long as that other team did not play it, move units, or change it in anyway?

[Arnelos]

I am strongly against this. I feel it violates the sanctity of the game for teams to lose the ability to deceive others, even their allies, about their intentions and motivations. This includes the ability to deceive even allies about troop movements and actions not directly visible by the ally in their own save.

By forcing teams to NOT share their saves with each other (but we can still share screenshots, etc.), they are forced to trust each other on the basis of actions and words alone. They cannot see the other's private deliberations in their forum and they cannot actually see any details in the save file aside from those which the other team shares with them in tidbits... even those they cannot always trust.

This forces every team to remember that no matter how close they become with another team, it always remains POSSIBLE that the other team is in reality ploting against them and could strike at any moment.

If two teams STARTED sharing saves, what happens when one of them suddenly decides to stop on a given turn? Won't that raise suspicions? Should it even be permitted for any two or more teams to grant each other that level of vulnerability?

I'd honesly rather that every team had to continue using screenshots... as I'd rather that every team be forced to keep in the back of their minds that it is POSSIBLE, however improbable, that things are not as they seem and others may be in reality working against them. Especially for cases where that is NOT taking place, the level of caution this introduces is critical to maintain the spirit of the game.

Trust is not easy... and it shouldn't be.

[Aidun]

I think this is a matter of state sovereignity. Any country is free to share as much information with another country as it likes to. It is up to teams to decide how much information they make public, how much they share with allies and how much they keep strictly secret.

Every team operates as a sovereign state and should be allowed to handle like a sovereign state, even if this means to totally abolish sovereignity of a team towards its ally. Teams should be free to do anything they like as long as they don't disadvantage other teams in an unfair way by doing so, such like cheating or making unfair use of bugs.

It should even be allowed that teams totally unite and become one centralized state or remain seperate, but together form a kind of a federal state.

Aidun

[FrustratedPoet]

I feel it violates the sanctity of the game for teams to lose the ability to deceive others, even their allies, about their intentions and motivations.

You think that lying to your friends is something sacred to be protected?

[DAVOUT]

I vote NO. The save is not the property of the teams, and cannot be traded. In fact, the save exists only because our system of multiplaying is not sophisticated enough; the hot seat is played without this being possible.

[vulture]

AIUI this would only be possible by a team giving their password to an ally (I may be wrong about this). Can teams change their password once an alliance changes? If not, it's a hell of a risk to take - if the alliance folds, another team still knows your password and may still be able to get access to your save. I know that we already rely on the honesty of everyone involved to avoid some forms of cheating, but this is something that one player could do withouth the knowledge of the rest of the team, and then use that knowledge to influence team decisions withouth anyone being any the wiser about it.

Aside from that, I kind of agree with Aidun, although the idea of teams merging leaves a sour taste (lets all merge our empires with Lego, so that we all become Lego members and win the game by conquest / domination - that way, everyone's a winner ). Teams should be allowed to give up however much information they want, unless an agreement is made between all teams to declare some forms of this as cheating.

[Beta]

No.

This strikes me as being contrary to the spirit and intent of the game, much like screen-shot map trades prior to the acquisition of map-making (and even then.)

[Donegeal]

No.

[redstar1]

I say absolutely not. I like to think of the game save as something below the level of the game itself, the mechanism by which the game is played. There is nothing to stop teams trading all information they would ever need but I beleive the save game itself should be kept 'sacred'.

[Aggie]

No!! All data that can be shared is easily shared other ways. This just adds a potential to abuse. All this really does is damage sovereignity without increasing the ability to cooperate.
Aggie

[ZargonX]

No. Especially since that just means turns would be delayed even longer

[Beta]

Originally posted by redstar1
I say absolutely not. I like to think of the game save as something below the level of the game itself, the mechanism by which the game is played. There is nothing to stop teams trading all information they would ever need but I beleive the save game itself should be kept 'sacred'.

Well said!

[Zayxus]

No.
One Reason:
Irreversible giving of password.

[Kloreep]

What redstar said.

[vondrack]

I do not like the idea either... it gets very close to having one team play two civs, which is something against the spirit of this game.

It would actually be the same as if someone was a member of two teams at the same time. Not acceptable either...