Team Collaberation Rules.

[Mathemagician]

so when are we going to vote on this ?

[FlameFlash]

and please post the link to the poll when we do vote on it.

[checkMate]

I'm still thinking

[checkMate]

I would like to put forth the following formula for the
answer to this.


I think there are basically three positions.

1) most conservative: Only in-game features may be used to communicate with your partner.

2) somewhat conservative: No collaberation is allowed until after players meet. Afterward all collaberation is allowed. (with some restrictions like no cheating)

3) liberal: Collaberation is allowed from the beginning.

I'm not sure whether there are other positions that can be stated clearly? Are there?

All of these positions have arguable merit. However, I don't think the majority should be able to decide this for someone else. I think that players should have the *right* to expect the more conservative interpretation since that is what would be expected in an ordinary multiplayer game.

So my proposal is that every player should communicate there preference here 1,2, or 3. For each 2x2 game, the player with the more conservative stance will set the rule for the game. I.E. if any player wants 1) then 1) will be the rule. If not, then if any player wants 2) then 2) will be the rule. Otherwise 3) is the rule.

What do you'll think?

There may be some specific issues if this is adopted. E.G. did anybody see their partners turn in an SAR game? But I think there are just a few of those, and they can be resolved one at a time fairly easily.

If a few players say so I would put this proposal up for an up/down vote. Otherwise I would like to here ideas.

[checkMate]

BTW: I will go on record as prefering number 2. I think that this is the most like real life. In life real life civs that had not met could not collaborate. But after meeting there is no real barriers to complete collaberation.

But I will have to request 3) in 2x2 games with Ancients, Raging Hordes, Earth Liberation Front, Mockers Revenge, and Dream Team since I have seen Nimrod's position in those games.

[MILAMBER]

i have to go with 3 as stated above in all games

[TheBirdMan]

And I have seen Keygens in every 2x2 games so far, that would be option 3 for me also.

[Keygen]

checkMate, since no rule had been specified from the beginning I find it kind obsolete to decide and vote for it now. It is natural that unless specified differently in the rules from the beginning that there is no restriction in anything but the SL rules. Since it appears that most people have already opened their partners turns any future restriction would only make things for those who haven't yet opened their partner's turns worse. OK go ahead with this discussion to see the trend but go with a poll too?

[checkMate]

I don't think it is quite so bad,

There is nothing that prevents or harms anything by restricting the collaberation where possible and when requested.

However, there is some conflict if you already saw you turns against SAR. In other games it probably won't matter in the proposed scheme.

For now the simplest thing is for everybody to simply state the preference 1), 2) or 3)

1) most conservative: Only in-game features may be used to communicate with your partner.

2) somewhat conservative: No collaberation is allowed until after players meet. Afterward all collaberation is allowed. (with some restrictions like no cheating)

3) liberal: Collaberation is allowed from the beginning.

[checkMate]

I hope nobody is suspending play at the moment

The only restriction on play at this time is that we shouldn't be looking at partners turns in games where you are not sure it is ok with your opponents.

Otherwise full speed ahead....

[gumpold]

It sounds like everyone will continue doing whatever they want. Whatever is decided I will continue playing inbetween choice one and two. (Diplomatic messages will be accompanied by e-mails to further explain proposals when nessesary. The same as in non SL games)

[checkMate]

Well I don't necessarily want a one size fits all rule. Don't think that would be \necessary. It is rather like the game settings, there is a standard, and players can agree to change the standard. I am leaning toward setting the standard at level 1. Most games will be played at level three, but I think that all of your games may be played at level 1. Others games may even play at level two. It just depends on the preference of the most conservative player in the group.

[Mathemagician]

i havent looked at any turns of ricketyclik (my partner) since the issue was raised.

but i dont really want any more detailed rulings that are different for each game. sorry people, im already getting confused with all my games.

whatever we decide, i suggest its binding for all games.

i still support nr. 3 btw.

[yoda]

My vote is for 3. However, slave trading and other "tricks" is where I draw the line.

[ricketyclik]

I also vote for 3 (slaves per turn ) Just kidding.