Rule Changes

[Spekter]

If anyone has any modifications or additions for the rules list (I'm guessing #8 will come up), please fire away...

If and when a consensus is reached, I'll make the changes to the registration thread.

[Wittlich]

One small inconsistancy.
REFERENCE:
7) Naming ships or planets anything derogatory along the lines of rule 5 will result in a warning and the Game Admin/Sysop may change the name. A second offense will result in a stronger form of punishment which is left to the other players and/or the Sysop/Game Admin's discretion.

Shouldn't it state: Naming ships or planets anything derogatory along the lines of rule 6... and not rule 5?

[Spekter]

Ah, the hazards of cutting and pasting are many...

All fixed.

[aeturneus]

I notice you put a question mark next to item number 8, regarding corporate backstabbing and general corp. rules. I personally am in favour of that rule, because, as it says, this will allow people to team up with people they don't know all that well, and could possibly make the game more enjoyable for them.

It works because it is a tournament game... if it was a regular game I might not like this rule, since the game is then more open-ended with time and plenty of lives to learn from mistakes and take risks. In tournament, the penalty to such risk-taking is so high that such risks are best avoided entirely by this rule in order to ensure corping and teaming is an option for everyone.

[Spekter]

I agree. That's why I did include it. However, there was a fair bit of griping about it last time we had the rules debate. The idea was that we could discuss it here and come to a final decision. Once everyone has had their say, I'll fix it. Maybe someone would like to start a poll?

[Wittlich]

Poll posted. Aeturneus, I took the liberty of taking your words out of your mouth for the Poll's introduction.

[burbel]

OK, I vote that number 1 through number 5 be consolidated into the golden rule, that shalt pre-register, and thou shalt not partake in dupes.

I also would vote that rules #6 through #10 be summarily dismissed.

As for the derogatory names, that's fine, but if it's taken too far the admin can intervene, which he always could. Personally, I thought the slanderous use of burbel (as in McBurbel's) was kinda cute.

Rule #8 -- if you want to corp, welcome to the fun. I personally, since we will have soo few traders in the game, would say that corps should be disabled.

Originally we were talking about a 4,000 sector game, at most after the last rebang we got what, 12 players? I think that a maximum corp size of 1 sounds nice (so folks can still get corp flags if they want).

Rule #9 (if that's the one about playing nice) seems to me to be "silly"; the not doing things that take the enjoyment out of the game for others -- to me, being killed takes the fun out of it, so being killed should be outlawed.

I kinda disagree with that; if someone almost makes it so Stardock but gets stuck, then they should get killed -- makes it a learning experience...

All MHO, of course -- I just think that, with as few players as we have, that trying to regulate this is going to be more hassle than it's worth. I just say let everyone in, we play by the rules of tradewars (ie, what's in the game), and everything goes.

[aeturneus]

Well Burbel, you want to have fun and escape to the free-wheeling universe of tw, and play by the built in rules, and I respect that.

But there is just no accounting for the behaviour of l33t h@xors and other juvenile pranksters that aren't interested in assimilating into this universe, simply in utilizing the features of the game to win at any cost. Rules deprive such people of honor and of the opportunity to profit from their depravity. Take that last fellow that was duping... the rule didn't prevent him from duping, but at least it was clear that what he was doing was wrong and he wouldn't be respected in the game and would ultimately be deleted and couldn't win because he had broken the rules.

There is a lot of potential for abuse of the features of trade wars such as messaging, eg. spamming someone till their box is full so they can't get real mail, gameplay bugs like constructing invincible "shield bugged" planets, and other machinations that I haven't thought of, which actually circumvent the original rules of the game, and, much like a crafty lawyer, win because they have identified the weaknesses in the existing rules.

Trade wars is a game that has been around the block, and weaknesses in the built in rules have been clearly identified - eg. bugs. Because of this, the community has to add to the built in rules if it is going to be a tournament game where people win on the basis of their skill in playing within the original intent of the rules. We simply have to make sure that our additional rules are congruent with the original intent of the built in rules, but correct their weaknesses and flaws, identified over the many years that tw has been played.

In preventing the exploitation of these built in flaws, most sites have a powerful weapon - a diligent administrator. Unfortunately, our administrator is not able to spend much time on tw, so we must take care to ostracise unnaceptable behaviour by creating rules, and refusing to accept violations to them. That is our only defense against the manipulation of weaknesses in the game.

I think that at a bare minimum we need rules against dupes, against the utilization of bugs, and against exploitation of game communications features to the detriment of the ability of other players to play the game - eg. spamming, though not including threatening messages or the occasional insult.

[burbel]

First things first -- let me apologize if I came on a bit dramatically; it's been a long, long week at work (and no Tradewars to make it better!)

I definitely think that it is important that we specify, in the game charter (or on this site), that cheating will not be allowed, and cheaters will be banned from playing (or deleted).

Cheating would include taking advantage of any known bugs, spamming other users to conserve their time, and anything else along these lines.

Also, any gross violation of decency (haven't seen any yet, but you never know) to other users or in the game itself must also be controlled.

I just think that the corping restriction (or maybe even corps themselves) as well as a general "play nice" policy would take a bit too much out of the game, esp. with the number of players (although, if all goes well, hopefully we can get more).

Again, sorry for being low!

[aeturneus]

never mind burbel, It's nice to have a chance to discuss stuff like t his again after a crazy summer in Quebec...

I think you might be right about knocking corps out of this particular game... on the other hand, there are so many strats that work better with a couple of players, and that would take a lot ouf of their effectiveness. I stick to my earlier statement about corps being a risk, and I know nobody wants to get knocked out prematurely, so I say take the risk out of corping and you will end up with some people corping. On the other hand, take some risk out of the game and you take some fun out of it...

[burbel]

=) Thanks for being easy on me. =)

The main reason for knocking out the corps is specifically because of how good those strategies that require a few players to enact can be, and how they will push the game in favor of the corp that does them best. In a game with as few people as we might have, I think it would come down to the corp that managed to get the max number of members would just push over the little guys...

The other thing is to take the risk out of corping removes one of the (if not the only) reasons for not corping. =) In my mind, that's a very real risk. Besides, if anyone corps with me, I plan on robbing them blind and podding them. Ooh, did I say that out loud? =)

[Wittlich]

Hmmm Burbel does make a vaid point concerning Corps...but how would we change it? Make the max membership only 1 or don't have corporations as an option?

If its only a one person corp or no corps in play, do you realize how long it would take to create and set-up your own planetary "home"?

[burbel]

I just say make the corp size 1. Yeah, it will take awhile, but it will take awhile for everyone, so it would be fair.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe we should see how many players we have before deciding on corporations?

[Spekter]

Corps of size 1 sounds good to me. The only reason I put in rule 8 was because, like burbel said, the biggest corp usually wins (see Apolyton last game ) and I wanted to make sure that I could trust my corp partners .

As for the wording of the other rules, follow the spirit of them. I borrowed them from a couple of old posts (which actually borrowed them from a TW League Site), and altered them. I never intended them to be "the 10 Commandments" or anything. I don't want a "gosh, darn, good fun" game either. If it's a casual, fun kind of insult and the victim isn't choked about it, go for it. However, if the victim is pissed, fix it, and apologize. I don't think anyone is looking to be an enforcer (Is ming playing? ), we just don't want to leave any room for "misunderstandings" once the game is going.