Team Collaberation Rules.

[TheBirdMan]

Seems like we have a new rule in SL3 - I will not vote against it as I can easily understand all your arguments for not looking at your partners map.

As for the SL2, I have not looked since this discussion started and I can live with that (not opening the partner's turns) without problems as long as I have a partner, who is playing his turns(!) and with great skill. But if - IF - I had a partner such as..... (I could mention quite a few ), whos work "forces" him away on an ir-rugular basis for 3 days here, 1 week there and then another 10 days...... Then I like the option to be able to play your partners turn without having the other team demanding your head on a stage. That makes the game running.

We also have "the guy" who play the turns when he wants to - but I would never join a team with such a player - if I had any knowledge of his bad habbit before the game/turnament started.

At my latest point of view, if I in the future should make team with a newbie, then I would like to be able to give some advices on how to play a certain turn, again without having the other team claiming you are cheating (and we would if that was against the rules).

The two latest paragraphs leads me to say: I would only make a team with a player I know how is playing, else I would keep my nose away.....

**

Now for SL2, I can tell that I can't remember Keygens exact position in everyone of the games and most important, that I have not dispatched a unit in his direction with the only purpose to make an early contact, neither have we discussed which advances one should reseach if possible - and we are not going to. I think that should satisfy most of the conservative members of the SL-league.

[Mathemagician]

just in case it didnt shine through in my previous posts:

im sticking to the strict rules in my 2x2 game vs. SAR too.

and i appreciate the work and thoughts you, checkmate, put into this league and discussion.
i think what you proposed is a good solution for this season.
as for season 3 i agree with birdman (or with how i understood him) that we should allow peeking at your partners turn next season.

[checkMate]

Originally posted by TheBirdMan

......
I like the option to be able to play your partners turn without having the other team demanding your head on a stage. That makes the game running.
......

Regardless of what we do about team collaberation, perhaps we should take about four volunteers from among our ranks to be "nexters." More or less moderators. We could assign the volunteer nexters randomly for the 2x2 and 1x1 games. Then work out rules when nexting is required/allowed. Are the nexting rules codified in CTP RULES 1.2?

[Mathemagician]

please dont apply nexting rules to SL, at least not 24h or 48h rule. im trying the best i can to keep up with my turns, but that would really kill the fun in it for me.

[checkMate]

No I wasn't thinking of any specific time limit, but in a 2x2 if all the other three players agree they should be able to next somebody.

[Mathemagician]

i believe a nexting rule should only be introduced into a game that is already lagging.

[checkMate]

Originally posted by Mathemagician
i believe a nexting rule should only be introduced into a game that is already lagging.

Yep, thats the idea.

[Mathemagician]

[Mathemagician]

so i assume full collaberation as in 3.) is allowed again for all games except with... er... SAR ?

[checkMate]

There is no rule to that affect, but it is my recomendation.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by 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."

Do you imply somehow that I am rediculus?
Sometimes it is needed that rediculus and vociferously examples are used to make a point since some people are able to comprehent the difference only that way.
I don't think anyone would ever use my example as a demand and yes, I find gumpold's ignorance pretty natural perhaps even among older players.
In case you're interested I didn't make comparison between "I didn't know you could attack" and "I didn't know players could look at there partners turn" in my previous post but an allusion that YOU CAN'T DEMAND SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN THE RULES I thought it was clear

Originally posted by checkMate

Looking at the partners turn is a highly irregular practice.

I disagree.

Originally posted by checkMate

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..

So we finally agree on something

Originally posted by checkMate

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.

I respect someone as much as he/she respects me.
Pay more attention, will you
I have already posted that I am elastic in the openning my partner's turn issue. If gumpold is so much crazy about it then I won't open Max's turn, no big deal. But as far as collaboration through email goes I will have to let him down. In fact - I don't won't to make an impression but I can't help it - the latter is the most extraordinary claim I have ever seen since I first started playing CtP PBEM games in Apolyton (January 2000). It would completely wipe out one of the most important aspects of PBEM multiplayer: Diplomacy.

To clear things up in case it is not to some people, I have opened the first partner's turn I received in all my 2x2 SL games once, and a second time in the games against Dream Team, ELF, Mocker's Revenge (I think) and Raging Hoards. The two of them in the event of an in-game message of a war event between my partner and the opposite team. I do not remember the location of my partner in any game but the one against the Raging Hoards, not even the general direction. I will open again my partner's turn in any event of high importance.

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by checkMate
There is no rule to that affect, but it is my recomendation.

i consider that to mean: "yes, you are right, except that it is not binding"
thanks

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Keygen
In case you're interested I didn't make comparison between "I didn't know you could attack" and "I didn't know players could look at there partners turn" in my previous post but an allusion that YOU CAN'T DEMAND SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN THE RULES I thought it was clear

in defence of gumpolds point and checkmates negotiation attempts, would you demand to be allowed to use obvious cheats like
-restarting turns where you unsuccessfully attacked
-using rush buy trick
-using rush PW build trick
-using massive slavery trick with your partner

just because someone forgot to explicitly state those are forbidden ?

you sound too much like a lawyer too me.

[Mathemagician]

and now in defence of keygen's points

i agree with him on the drasticness of point 1.) (which was gumpolds original demand)

i would like checkmates negotiation proposal still better if option 2.) was the most drastic thing a player/team could demand, not option 1.)

as a note:
ive started looking at my partners turns again in at least one game that is NOT against SAR (gumpold).

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Mathemagician

in defence of gumpolds point and checkmates negotiation attempts, would you demand to be allowed to use obvious cheats like
-restarting turns where you unsuccessfully attacked
-using rush buy trick
-using rush PW build trick
-using massive slavery trick with your partner

just because someone forgot to explicitly state those are forbidden ?

You've got a point there, I must admit.
However that would be up to what is cheat and what is not a cheat, and not what is in the rules or not
You can't possibly consider as a cheat the fact that you have opened your partner's turn in a team game or exchanged emails, can you?

Originally posted by Mathemagician

you sound too much like a lawyer too me.

I do?