Team Collaberation Rules.

[FlameFlash]

3 wouldn't include cheating like the slaves, of course...

Personally I'd have to go with 2 with the poke at a team member "I'm in the southwest quadrant..." etc.

2.5 then?

[MILAMBER]

[checkMate]

Originally posted by 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.

I don't think that is a reason to have one size fits all just because we can't remember. I am pretty sure you will remember when the opposents don't send you your partners turns. You just have to remember, never forward any turns to your partner. Only when the opponents agree then they can forward the partners turn. This way it is quite easy to tell what is what.
But ....

[checkMate]

I want to do it like this.

1) Since no-one except Gumpold has expressed a concern over this, everyone should refrain from looking at their partners turns and collaberating via email in SAR games.

2) For all games, no-one should forward their turn to their partner. This is up to the opponents to decide whether they want to do so on any given turn. This should help with memory lapses.

3) if anyone posts here this week and wants their team to play under regime 1), like SAR, then it will be just like SAR for them.

Otherwise everybody is playing as in regime 3)

As for the Ancients, I would just like to ask that they try to forget where there partner is in the SAR game. But other than that I can see no remedy.

Gumpold and anybody else may also decide to go for regime 2) instead of regime 1). He seemed to express that at one point, but for now it is to be as in regime 1)

That's it!

Just a reminder the three regimes are.

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.


Any strong objection? I realize it is a bit unilateral on my part, (read totally unilateral) but....

[FlameFlash]

/me shurgs.

[checkMate]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
* FlameFlash shurgs.

I long suspected you were a shurger...

Come to think of it. I shurg as well ...

[FlameFlash]

I shrug often and well. Remember, I vote for 2.5.

[Keygen]

checkMate, I will have to let you down on this. I do not accept your proposal/request/demand/what ever that I cannot look into my partner's turn or collaborate via email/icq/forum/etc in our game or any other 2x2 game that a similar request might be made. I am sorry but this was not a requirement to join the SuperLeague from the beginning, and if it was I wouldn't had join at all. If you can actually convince me for the reasoning behind your request not to open my partner's turn I might be able to go with it but not to collaborate with my partner by exchanging information between us is out of the question.

Really, why do you want this?

[ricketyclik]

Originally posted by Keygen
checkMate, I will have to let you down on this. I do not accept your proposal/request/demand/what ever that I cannot look into my partner's turn or collaborate via email/icq/forum/etc in our game or any other 2x2 game that a similar request might be made. I am sorry but this was not a requirement to join the SuperLeague from the beginning, and if it was I wouldn't had join at all. If you can actually convince me for the reasoning behind your request not to open my partner's turn I might be able to go with it but not to collaborate with my partner by exchanging information between us is out of the question.

Really, why do you want this?

If I understand correctly, checkMate only wants to apply the above to games with SAR in them. For the rest of the games we can exchange turns.

[checkMate]

My only reasoning is that you same argument can be applied in the reverse direction.

I.E. someone might say.

"I wound never have joined the super league if I thought that teams were going to cheat by looking at each others turns."

So I was trying to find ground between these two extremem opinions. There isn't much ground there, but I just lean toward respecting the view that no-one should be looking at their partners turns without permission of some sort. It is a bit irregular on the face of it.

As far as the other type of collaberation, realistically there is nothing to be done about it. But it just seems that in real life you could not collaberate with a civ that you had not met. But afterward you could do just about any kind of collaberation you want.

The main problem with this is that it might not be quite equal. It might take a long time to find your team mate.


Anyway it was only a suggestion, I can't tell what to do.

And yes, the restriction appears to apply only to SAR games if it does apply

[Keygen]

It appears that I made a mistake.
It is gumpold I should address my post to and not checkMate
Sorry for the confusion.

A note however in one of your comments checkMate. The argument you contradict is not a solid one. Someone can't claim that something should apply or not while all games have already started and are in progress without his claim been in the rules from the beginning. He can simply suggest and who ever feels like go with it. That would leave the door open to anything you can imagine, like "Hey, don't attack me, I would never join SL if I knew about it" However you can ask not to include any mod as specified in the rules from the beginning and as happened in action regarding the PBEM Mod in some games. See my point?

Now if the argument is that openning your partner's turn or collaborating with him through email is considered a cheat - which is banned from SL and as far as I know in all multiplayer forums in Apolyton - Gumpold should perhaps explain to the rest of us why he considers it a cheat I can put forth some arguments myself why it is not considered as a cheat if needed.

BTW checkMate, it is true that you can't collaborate with someone you haven't meet yet in the real world but also you can't form a team and earn any sort of points/benefits without having meet him either

[ricketyclik]

Originally posted by Keygen
"Hey, don't attack me, I would never join SL if I knew about it"

You mean that's allowed?

[Mathemagician]

so how about the "memory lapse" in distinguishing between 1.) and 2.) where in both cases you do not get the turns for your partner (i would assume) ?
or can you ask your opponents to forward your partners turn to you once you have made contact with him anyway ?

to put keygens last point (real world comparison) a bit further:
in real world, also, you wouldnt usually cooperate all-out with any nation, even a friend nation, as no one trusts the other so much (or so it has been for millenia and this game is mostly about the history we consider the past ).

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Mathemagician
to put keygens last point (real world comparison) a bit further:
in real world, also, you wouldnt usually cooperate all-out with any nation, even a friend nation, as no one trusts the other so much (or so it has been for millenia and this game is mostly about the history we consider the past ).

hmmm quoting myself once more
to put it clear. that was meant as an argument AGAINST over-realistic approaches (and thus rules demands) in CTP.

[checkMate]

It is always easy to make rediculus analogies to prove a faulty point; a moments reflection will reveal a big difference between claiming that "I didn't know you could attack" and claiming "I didn't know players could look at there partners turn."

Looking at the partners turn is a highly irregular practice. And should have been voted on in the beginning. However i mistakenly allowed it without discussion through lazy mindedness. And as I said this is my mistake.

So i do basically agree with your argument as to "there was not a rule" Also the point about option 2 being most like real life was more by way of explaining my resoning for it. You can't carry the similarity too far of course. So..

That said, if you don't want to respect Gumpold by not looking at your opponents turn in your 2x2 with SAR go ahead, nothing stops you. As for me I will not do it. But I can't force anyone to do anything since we didn't have a rule.

Not having a rule of course never means that one cannot be created later. However, I don't see a practical path to do so without better agreement, so what can one do.

I thought my proposal was pretty good to set the boundaries at the more conservative view. It probably would only affect one of your games.

But I'm not hard headed propose something better...