Chat Polls Discussion

[Master Zen]

1 - Abstain. I won't be playing the turns anyway.
2 - Hell no
3 - I have no clue what this is. "Great People gifting"? I had no clue you could even do that...
4 - Why not?
5 - This really depends on the circumstance. If city gifting is exploitative in nature then of course not. However, I do see circumstances in which city gifting should be allowed, say as war reparations or evening out borders, or whatever else might come to mind. If gifting is used for some exploit of the game mechanics, then I'm totally against it.

[asleepathewheel]

1. 24 hr lenient
2. No (as much fun as it was last game)
3. No
4. Yes ( I know it goes against the grain, but I dig mind games, but I object to promotion farming)
5. Only to resolve border issues/treaties

[Metaliturtle]

change my #3 to no

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
4. Yes ( I know it goes against the grain, but I dig mind games, but I object to promotion farming)

Good point. No type of promotion farming between allies should be permitted. I am however in favor of fake wars in the true sense of the word: no combat actually taking place. Sleazy? Maybe. But it opens a whole new dimension in diplomacy.

Plus... you know... it's kinda like the GoW thing to do...

[NicodaMax]

Master Zen on GP gifting
I have no clue what this is. "Great People gifting"? I had no clue you could even do that...

Well, Great People are units, and as such, they can be gifted to another civ. One civ can concentrate their efforts (more efficient that way I suppose = more GPs) on Great Artists, for example, while an ally concentrates on Great Scientists, thus leading the "team" to a faster research rate, among other things. There's a lot of discussion on this in the public forum but basically some feel it would lead to a do or die (unbalancing) situation, whatever teams don't do this will find themseleves at a great dissadvantage and lose and die .... etc. Others feel that it wouldn't go to such extremes and want to leave the possibility open as a valid strategic choice.
I'm still undecided but leaning to no because I feel I should trust our "great masters" (nye, krill, F-P, etc.)

Master Zen on City gifting
This really depends on the circumstance. If city gifting is exploitative in nature then of course not. However, I do see circumstances in which city gifting should be allowed, say as war reparations or evening out borders, or whatever else might come to mind. If gifting is used for some exploit of the game mechanics, then I'm totally against it.

I totally agree.

Updated the summary btw

[Theseus]

1. 48 hours

2. No to teleporting as an exploit (e.g., cancelling Open Borders for solely this purpose)... but there are certainly times when it happens naturally (e.g., end of a real war), and if managed properly can be to the teleporter's benefit.

3. Emphatic yes. I'm not just thinking of the proactive diplo aspects on research, but on of things like war reparations... can we say "German rocket scientists"?

4. No.

5. Only within one turn of the end of a "real" war.

[notyoueither]

re 4. Fake wars.

I forgot that it should be allowed to break a resource deal if it isn't for the purpose of resource sharing.

Say we don't need our copper and sell it to a neighbour thinking that we won't be needing it. Then another neighbour springs its surprise invasion on us.

We should have the power to cancel the deal, but the game will not allow it short of ten turns.

Teams need to be able to declare war to stop deals, provided that they do not immediately sell the resource again after completing some units, ie sharing.

Sharing would be two teams effectively turning one source of a strategic into two by oscillating export/cutting/export/cutting/etc.

[Harovan]

1) 24 hours
2) huh? no, probably.
3) no
4) no
5) no, except for sharing the spoils of a war with an ally

[ruby_maser]

1. yeah, 24 hours
2. No
3. Abstain. I don't fully understand the implications.
4. For diplomatic intrigue and AATW's "mind games", yes. For promotion farming, no.
5. No

[NicodaMax]

Just on the GP Gifting issue, where a GS official position is needed in the Public Forum...

alva: Why not? (undecided, leaning towards no)
Metaliturtle: No
NicodaMax: Undecided (abstain?)
dejon: No problem (is this a Yes?)
Aginor: always fair to trade these (is this a Yes?)
Krill: No
nye: No
Master Zen: Yes
asleepathewheel: No
Theseus: Yes
Sir Ralph: No
ruby_maser: Abstain

Yes: 2 (could be 3)
No: 5 (could be 6)
Abstain 1 (could be 2)

So far No is winning...will this be our official position or do we need a Poll?

Edit: Feel free to edit this guys

[alva]

alva: Why not? (is this a Yes?)

Was a question.

Put me down in the undecided camp, leaning towards 'no'.

[Master Zen]

Well, let's see.

Einstein didn't particularly benefit Germany much now did he?

Leonardo da Vinci's best works are now in the Louvre aren't they?

I really don't see why great people necessarily end up benefiting their home countries in their entirety, so for all I care, trade GPs.

[Master Zen]

Oh yeah, before I forget, Jesus was a real help to the Romans...

[NicodaMax]

on the last one, as far as I'm concerned, Jesus was invented by the romans

I really don't see why great people necessarily end up benefiting their home countries in their entirety, so for all I care, trade GPs

While I agree with you on the matter, I can't ignore the fact that some people, who IMHO have a vastly deeper understanding of the game mecanichs than me, have made it very clear that this will unbalance and limit strategies in the game. I can see that circumstances may prove them right or wrong, so I am really undecided/abstaining in the matter. I hate it when I cant make up my mind

[notyoueither]

We should vote on a couple of these publically.

I read it 'yes' on time limits meaning that they will be lenient and no skipped turns without further decision by the teams.

'No' to cancelling OB to teleport units.

I read it 'no' to GP trading or gifting.

I read it as 'no' to fake wars. However, we need to consider the 4th point, a DoW to cancel a deal if the intent is not to 'share' a resource.

On city gifting: 'Only to settle borders with a preexisting neighbour or due to results of war.'

Anyone have a problem with those results?