09-03-2004 07:32									#1
	GWT-GCA City Swapping... Yet Another U.N. Issue Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

GCA built 2 cities to complete the canal of cities across the isthmus on the other continent.

It seems that GCA and GWT intend to swap these cities back and forth each turn in order that both of their fleets may move through them on their own turns.

CGN has stopped the game again and is demanding a replay and that this practice is banned.

Mongoose currently agrees with CGN's position on the issue, but has at least paused to consider the matter and asked for our input on the issue.

Here's the discussion on the issue in #isdgfamtalks:

quote: mongoose201> anyone around? Aidun> Yes, me, Togas Aidun> Wgitebandit, Arnelos and MZ too Arnelos> hey mongoose201> ah.. good.. quick question..I need an outside opinion..(although your opinion is not neccessarily from the outside) MasterZen> yo Arnelos> heh Arnelos> Mongoose - fire away Togas> yo mongoose201> do you think that two civs should be allowed to trade cities back and forth for the purpose of unit movement... I know that you are probably against it, as I am... my question is, to what degree are you against it, if you are? Arnelos> we anticipated this mongoose201> Arnelos> to be honest, we anticipated that GWT would give Hi Guys! to GCA mongoose201> it goes much farther than that now Arnelos> no one objected and said this was against the rules, but doesn't necessarily mean they don't think so Togas> I don't see how that's related to Mongoose's question Togas> Giving GWT that city doesn't teleport units, unless that means sending units BACK to GWT's capital Togas> giving *GCA I mean mongoose201> GCA has built two cities where CGN had cities to go back and forth between the seas.. Arnelos> I'm assuming, unless Mongoose says otherwise, that all that is going on is that GCA and GWT are trading Hi Guys! back and forth to move units along the road to the south Togas> how would it move units south? Arnelos> in other words, they're just trading the cities back and forth so both civs can use the sea channel? Togas> wait, I see what you mean. Allow them to travel through it w/o RoP or going around. Arnelos> Togas - correct Togas> lousey exploit, if you ask my opinion, but I don't think Poly has any sort of official opinion yet. Arnelos> in effect, making a RoP more effective because even an in-game RoP will not allow you to travel THROUGH another civ's cities mongoose201> exactly Arnelos> the team obviously hasn't discussed it yet mongoose201> of course not... it was just made apparent when CGN got the turn Arnelos> well, I'm going to be coy about my personal opinion, since I'm relatively sure that I don't have nearly as much of a problem with it as I'm sure CGN does. I have no idea what my team thinks. mongoose201> micco feels... what's the word.... VERY STRONGLY...about it mongoose201> he is calling for a replay... which just chills my blood to think about... I would prefer to just ban the action, but how do you differentiate the legitimate trading of cities with the action described mongoose201> that would be the main problem Arnelos> well, personally, I don't think what GWT/GCA did is entirely black-and-white objectionable, but that may just be me Arnelos> I mean.. if we're going to outlaw this, how many turns do they have to wait between trading the cities? 1? 2? 5? 10? Togas> I can't think of any legitimate reason to hand a city back & forth between teams, but the sort of thing is hard to put into words. Arnelos> it's all arbitrary WhiteBandit> if you would have taken my advice and just opened GCA's turn, clicked retire and pass it on, none of this would be an issue Arnelos> mongoose201> hahah... that's just it.. the whole thing is subjective.. and I can type out Lucky's reply blindfolded Arnelos> because you know if this practice is outlawed, all it means is that they wait longer before trading the cities... afterall, trading cities is still considered legitimate... how often is too often? Togas> brb Arnelos> Mongoose - yes... I think we can all type out Lucky's reply Arnelos> but I don't care about Lucky Arnelos> I just care about the rule being fair mongoose201> yes Arnelos> so the question comes down to how often is too often? mongoose201> I suppose Arnelos> why not every turn? Arnelos> we need an answer to that question * Furloaf has joined #isdgfamtalks Arnelos> I think that if we open this up for an intenal debate, though, you might have one mongoose201> that just seems exploitive, I guess.. there is no legitimate reason to trade cities on consecutive turns Arnelos> I'm pretty sure this is the type of thing that is going to get a lot of comment from our team mongoose201> I assumed so... that's why I came... welcom Furloaf! Furloaf> Hello Arnelos> hi Furloaf * miccofl has joined #isdgfamtalks mongoose201> there you are miccofl> hello Arnelos> hey miccofl miccofl> hello Arnelos Togas> back mongoose201> I tell you what I told micco... I would prefer to just play on, and ban the action... but how do you ban the action mongoose201> it leaves too much up in the air miccofl> which is where I told mongoose201 that the expoits must stop now Arnelos> my question is *what* are you going to ban? miccofl> and the turn should back up Togas> instead of making a "black and white" rule, you may find yourself having to make a rule that requires you to determine, on a case by case basis, if there's an explioit.... Togas> what should be banned is "trading a city back and forth for the purpose of allowing both teams to travel through it" mongoose201> that's what I am trying to avoid... that would be a nightmare, as well as uneccessary delay miccofl> Togas has a good point Togas> but the problem is, you'd have to JUDGE on a case by case basis if that's what going on mongoose201> exactly * MasterZen has quit IRC (Ping timeout) Togas> and unless we can draft a black & white rule that covers all of the possibilities ... not an easy task ... you may just have to go with the more "judgement call" ruling. mongoose201> what would happen then, is they would perform the action, then say "oh, but we really traded the city for blah, blah, blah..., does that mean that we can't also move units through our own city?" * Arnelos is going to post in our forum about this... see what people think miccofl> yes, because we all know it is BS Arnelos> there are a number of people I'll be very interested to see if they can come up with a solution to this mongoose201> ok, yes, by all means post it Togas> I the world of courts and laws, most laws are written in a way that requires a judge (or jury) to decide the intent of someone. In essence you'd have to decide if the INTENT of swapping was to allow them both to move thru, of if there was another plausible reason. mongoose201> certainly Togas> and you'd have to listen to their "explaination" and decide if you think it was reasonable or not. mongoose201> yes.. their "explanation" lol Togas> anyhow, if our team members post any good advice or pieces of wisdom, we'll let you know. mongoose201> Okay..I'll stay logged on... but I may be afk for a while Togas> However, my advice at this point is to try to handle it on the general "This appears to be exploitative behavior, can you please explain why you've done this?" and go from there. mongoose201> righto

	09-03-2004 07:32									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So, any input from the team? What should be the ruling on this issue? How often is too often trade cities? Is there such a thing as too often?

	09-03-2004 07:53									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Give me a break, WTF is with these guys? Am I missing something here, or is their whole attitude screw you guys we'll export the game mechanics everytime we can think of a way to do it.......but you better not do the same or we might quit.


Sorry but this really ticks me off, its going past the point of making the game a farce IMO.....and its not that I think this one issue is that big of a deal (though it is clearly an exploit) or that it gives them that much of an advantage, its just the whole message it sends after that last bout of crap.

	09-03-2004 08:05									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I am not even sure, if I am against the tactic 100%.

Is it something I would do in a personal PBEM with an ally ?
Probably yes.
But we seem to have set ourselves higher standards with Democracy games.

CGN will obviously want it banned.
But probably not because it is an exploit. They just want to make life as difficult as possible for their allied enemies.

Look at it this way…
If we were still fighting GCA on our continent.
And CFC offered to send riders through Equilibrium to boost our front line….I reckon we would all agree to a temporary ownership transfer in a flash.

I want to jump on CGN’s side, but that is just because they are an ally.
It seems exploitive… but is it really ?

So count me as sitting on the fence on this issue.



If you guys needed an argument…try this one.

GWT & GCA have always said that they don’t like units getting “extra movements”, especially since GWT got busted for it earlier in the game.
Their whole argument about CGN gifting the city to APO was that the city gifting was fine, but the units that attacked and warped got an extra move (ie the warp)

Perhaps we could argue, that by gifting the cities, GWT/GCA are avoiding “movements”
Or…twisting it around…By gifting cities, the units are getting “extra movements”. They are using a short-cut, and not sailing around the long way.

	09-03-2004 08:19									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think my gut reaction is from two factors:

I don't play multiplayer civ, never have. So I'm probally more of a purist than some others in terms of what I see as exploitive.

We have gone round and round over the extra movement thing. GWT's been made to replay turns because of it, and most recently they used it (correctly) to fight the unit teleportation issue (that they started). I just see turning around and doing this as more or less the middle finger. -shrug-


Could also just be that I'm dang sick of this game disintegrating into arguments about exploits, so naturally I blame them for doing something that is clearly borderline if not over the line.

	09-03-2004 08:30									#7
	Suffering from ads?

This is a legit move in my book.

nothing is being warped. nothing is gaining extra movement. the only thing that changes is the two nations lose a little income, maybe, from the towns. Big whoop.

to cgn for being babies.

	09-03-2004 09:23									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Hot_Enamel I am not even sure, if I am against the tactic 100%. Is it something I would do in a personal PBEM with an ally ? Probably yes. But we seem to have set ourselves higher standards with Democracy games. CGN will obviously want it banned. But probably not because it is an exploit. They just want to make life as difficult as possible for their allied enemies. Look at it this way… If we were still fighting GCA on our continent. And CFC offered to send riders through Equilibrium to boost our front line….I reckon we would all agree to a temporary ownership transfer in a flash. I want to jump on CGN’s side, but that is just because they are an ally. It seems exploitive… but is it really ? So count me as sitting on the fence on this issue. If you guys needed an argument…try this one. GWT & GCA have always said that they don’t like units getting “extra movements”, especially since GWT got busted for it earlier in the game. Their whole argument about CGN gifting the city to APO was that the city gifting was fine, but the units that attacked and warped got an extra move (ie the warp) Perhaps we could argue, that by gifting the cities, GWT/GCA are avoiding “movements” Or…twisting it around…By gifting cities, the units are getting “extra movements”. They are using a short-cut, and not sailing around the long way.

H_E's reaction is EXACTLY the same as the one I had. My first thought when I heard about it was to think about transfering control of the chokepoint cities on our continent in the event of a war. With naval units in the lake, we'd want to transfer them in and out of the lake, probably on either side.

I also think this type of practice isn't straight-out black-and-white objectionable. This is the reason I was questioning Mongoose in chat on this.... Mongoose is basically in CGN's back pocket, which is why he's of the same opinion as them on it...

	09-03-2004 09:25									#9
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel This is a legit move in my book. nothing is being warped. nothing is gaining extra movement. the only thing that changes is the two nations lose a little income, maybe, from the towns. Big whoop. to cgn for being babies.

This was basically my thought as well, but I sure as hell wasn't going to say that to Mongoose and CGN without checking whether my sentiments were matched by my own team.

Here's the problem... let's say that we agree that we think this is legit. What are we going to do to get CGN to agree to it?

	09-03-2004 10:46									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It is a questionable move IMO.

What if the city had a Wonder in it? They would surely see that as exploitive if it were perhaps Magellans or Adam Smiths. But, the consequences of this particular city exchange(s) do not go as far.

What if the city was a physical choke point, with no option to go around on land? Would it be considered more of an exploit then?

I want to say to allow this; but I want to think about it a bit more and hear from my esteemed team mates before I have a final say on it..

	09-03-2004 10:58									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is getting ridiculous. One team or another is going to complain about the other for the rest of this game. It's never going to finish.

	09-03-2004 17:19									#12
	Support Apolyton

I have no Objection to them doing this for JUST unit movement purposes. But I can see a larger tactical issue here that I don't think that anyone is aware of. Try this out for size:

Exploit #1: GWT had a galley that is greatly damaged in a fight with CGN. It won't last another turn and more CGN naval units are approcing. GCA give them the city, they duck in, heel and them head back out to sea when things are better. This city can also have a Harbor Rush built, for faster healing, because it will stay with the city when it changes hands.

Exploit #2: GWT rush builds a Barracks. They then gift it to GCA. GCA is now able to quickly upgrade their Horseman to War Elephants (Mongoose will have to watch for 0 movement upgrade alls). Then, GCA gifts the city back to GWT and GWT sends some Ansars in to quickly heal.

And of course, any combination of the above. Apparently, from what was posted in the Warping thread, they (GWT/GCA) was basing their tactical planning with Unit Warping, likely with Warping GCA horses back home to upgrade and then to head back out to the front. This is almost the same thing, but without the warp.

* E_T things that we will have to poll on this, after some serious debate.

E_T

	09-03-2004 17:24									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

* E_T is really starting get get pi$$ed off at these guys.

I'm about ready to entirely chuck our builders schedual and go whole hog War production. But unfortunately, that isn't practical right now.,...

I know that F-P still has access to this forum, and I really wonder what the Ladder community has to say about this issue.

E_T

	09-03-2004 17:46									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As long as no unit warping takes place then I think this is a perfectly valid tactic.

	09-03-2004 18:05									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by E_T I have no Objection to them doing this for JUST unit movement purposes. But I can see a larger tactical issue here that I don't think that anyone is aware of. Try this out for size: Exploit #1: GWT had a galley that is greatly damaged in a fight with CGN. It won't last another turn and more CGN naval units are approcing. GCA give them the city, they duck in, heel and them head back out to sea when things are better. This city can also have a Harbor Rush built, for faster healing, because it will stay with the city when it changes hands. Exploit #2: GWT rush builds a Barracks. They then gift it to GCA. GCA is now able to quickly upgrade their Horseman to War Elephants (Mongoose will have to watch for 0 movement upgrade alls). Then, GCA gifts the city back to GWT and GWT sends some Ansars in to quickly heal. And of course, any combination of the above. Apparently, from what was posted in the Warping thread, they (GWT/GCA) was basing their tactical planning with Unit Warping, likely with Warping GCA horses back home to upgrade and then to head back out to the front. This is almost the same thing, but without the warp. * E_T things that we will have to poll on this, after some serious debate. E_T

This is the type of thing I was hoping someone would think about if I brought the issue to the forum. These concerns will DEFINATELY be forwarded to Mongoose.

While I honestly do not find GCA/GWT's use of trading cities for the purposes of creating a virtual RoP to be objectionable, I *do* find the idea of double-use out of the same improvements in the same city to be exploitive. We'll need Mongoose to check on that and it might not even hurt to directly approach GWT about the issue (so that it can be resolved before turns have to be replayed).

	09-03-2004 18:41									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by E_T * E_T is really starting get get pi$$ed off at these guys. I'm about ready to entirely chuck our builders schedual and go whole hog War production. But unfortunately, that isn't practical right now.,... I know that F-P still has access to this forum, and I really wonder what the Ladder community has to say about this issue. E_T

As fate would have it, after playing the first turn of the CISDG for the ladder last night, I got nostalgic and dropped in.

::Waves cheerily while tipping his hat::

If you don't mind, I'd like to drop in from time to time again - but probably not as much as I used to, because, uh, this president thing shore do take up th' time, ayep.

Before I say anything, let me disclose my own bias - I despise GCA and their leader immensely because of their "Let's use a trick any time we can" attitude, and I sincerely hope they make it to the finals of the CISDG so PAL can grind them up like we did here. That's neither here nor there, however:

In the ladder community, no one has ever tried this particular sort of manuever. We are generally very permissive, though - on the theory that any time an "interesting" tactic is used, it's something that anyone could have done in that situation. We also play a LOT of games though, so the chance for you to "do as was done unto you" is a major mitigating factor which doesn't apply here.

We've only ever banned one tactic in our community - the exchanging of cities via capture by teammates to inflate VP - because it clearly violates the VP principles. This tactic would probably go into the next category: the "cheesy, but allowed - just realize what it will make people think about you" category. CGN is right to be unhappy, but it is just another aspect of the fact that MP civ is a different game than SP civ and humans are more clever than the AI. I admire Lucky's cleverness, but at the same time, I do not admire his morals.

And I surely know what a lot of people think of GCA and GWT for redefining and expanding the boundaries of "how to be slimy, rule-bending bastards" as a result. I don't think they quite realize that while the game resets with every map, reputations do not... I'll be interested to see how GCA and GWT's diplomatic situations resolve in the CISDG.

Right. I've said enough. ::doffs his hat one more time::

	09-03-2004 19:04									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think this one falls on the "smart play" side of the exploit line. They're trying to squeeze maximum advantage out of the game. I don't really blame them for that.

At the end of the day, whether or not a tactic is deemed kosher is up to the community - that being the teams in the game. Frankly, I could imagine a community that was ok with unit warping via city gifting (the Ladder, for instance, if I read F_P's post correctly). We've decided, however, we don't like that one (myself included).

This one isn't nearly as bad, IMO. And I think there is a point at which one simply has to accept that smart humans are going to use game mechanics to their advantage.

I mean, think about it, lots of things are potentially exploits. Is a "combat settler" used to push back borders just so, so that your units can get to a spot they couldn't otherwise reach really an intended use of that unit by the game designers? Probably not. But people have figured out it works great in certain situations, and we've used it. That's just the first thing that occurred to me. I'm sure there is more.

Anyway, I'd let this one slide. But it's such a subjective thing... let's vote, soon, to figure out what our team position is, and then our leaders can bring that to the UN.

-Arrian

	09-03-2004 19:15									#18
	Got spare money?

D*mn, it's good to see that "pretty face" of yours in here again, F-P, it really is and you have been missed very much.

Now, yes, the issue, in my mind, boils down to sportsmanship vs. sliminess. On the one hand, we are being as sportsmanlike as is humanly possible, especially with what has gone before. And, yes, they are almost being the opposite. And because of this (among other reasons), we have lost a lot of good people and will like lose a few (or more) people. I for one, was breaking up the furnature in the chatroom, venting my anger over this, because, this very well might kill this game, once and for all.

* E_T is a very layed back person and it takes a LOT to get me as angry as I was today

If this goes the way that I think it just might go, I might not see the Palace jumping and our GA going. All of my effort to date will have been for not, because of some slimy people who think it's better to win, no matter how, than to possibly lose.

Well, we need to show them how a type of team as ours will ultimately kick their slimy little kiddie A$$es!! Let's work at keeping this game going and see what the future has to offer. And lets do it the right way.

E_T

	09-03-2004 20:30									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think that this really is just a smart tactic on GWT-CGA part. However, this game is degenerating into a complete mess. If we were to move to consider a banning of any type, I think it should be to a banning of city gifting of any type, except for dealing in peace (just like in SP).

	10-03-2004 03:14									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I have no problem with transferring cities to another party to allow unit movement, but repeatedly gifting it back and forth, of even gifting it back during the same conflict I consider an exploit because it allows two teams to gain a specific benefit that comes with one city. How is this different than double-duty usage of artillery. They are gettting double usage of the canal benefit that comes with one city. I guess it is different because in reality to people cant use the same artillery at once, but they could use the same "canal". But for game purposes any activity done with the goal of getting double usage of "property" i.e. units/cities. should not be allowed, IMHO.

	10-03-2004 03:23									#21
	Got spare money?

quote: I think that this really is just a smart tactic on GWT-CGA part. However, this game is degenerating into a complete mess.

Agreed.

Part of me just wants to let it slide so the game continues. Part of me thinks it's ok. And part of me finds it questionable.

Arg.

-Arrian

	10-03-2004 03:36									#22
	Suffering from ads?

What's happening is a problem on many levels.

First, they're sharing cities. Which isn't such a big deal, but it's borderline exploitive.

Second, they're reducing movement point costs. Instead of having to move around an ally's city, they're allowing each other to move through it.

Third, they've created an canal structure that they intend to hand back & forth between the two nations. Also borderline exploitive.

Forth, (excellet point by ET) they can rush an improvement and use it in the same turn after gifting it to the ally.

But all in all, it strikes me as tactic that abuses the rules. Gut instict. It's different if we happened to gift a city to an ally one time for a specific purpose -- so they could travel through the chokepoint, for example. Here it just seems like a scheme to get around the rules.

I don't like it, but it seems that many on this team don't seem to mind it.

My proposal, then, is that we tell Mongoose to simply use his judgement on if he thinks it is exploitive or not. Let's not try to settle on a new rule.

--Togas

	10-03-2004 03:53									#23
	Tired of ads?

After somany people who stated my opinion I asked myself what I could add to that and I have something that I think is worth considering.

Like for the last issue I compared Civ3 with the real world, I do it here too. Again I leave it up to anyone who reads this to decide for himself if he likes Civ3 to be as close to the real world as possible.

If you do want it to be as close to it as possible, this is a consequence:
I take for example Panama, where the US have dug a canal through, the Panamacanal. I remember from my lessons geography that the canal itself was owned by the US, but the surrounding land was Panamese, I can however not find a proof for this on the map of the Carribean. However, whether is is US territory or not, US oiltanker ships from Alaska pass through that canal to reach (or reached, but I don't know of a pipeline from Alaska to the eastcoast) the east coast of the US. So ships, even if they are of another nation may pass through a city in the real world.
Why then not in Civ3 if you want Civ3 to be as close to the real world as possible? There is but no way in Civ3 to let another nation's ships pass though the city without gifting him the city. So if you want to make Civ3 as much like as the real world as possible, you shouls allow city gifting for the purpose of moving ships through it. And not only ships. Didn't the European countries allow Americans to have soldiers in their citues during the cold war. Just remember Berlin: US, British, Russian and French troops in it after WW2 and during the cold war.

Now the issue of using this tactic for healing purposes:
In the former version of Civilization, Civ2, it was possible to let your allies heal your units, by moving like if you wanted to attack these units of the other player. the results of city gifting vcan not even be compared with the results that healing gave in civ2. Units could be healed during the turn I believe, but I'm not sure on that, its already some year ago since I last played it. This is of course not civ2, but it gives me to think if it is not just a clever use of possibilities.

I agree bit with F-P that diplomatically it is not very wise to do, elephants have a long memmory when it comes to attitudes of people, but humans too

Aidun.

	10-03-2004 03:57									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ok, I'll have to side with GCA-GWT here.

First of all, understand that these two teams area allies, and therefore have every right to assist each other whatever way they can. Second of all, transfer of cities is a perfectly acceptable tactic, that they use it for "canal" purposes is simply a twist on it.

Now what would I think be wrong? Trading cities for Wonder/Improvement use. Imagine if we got Leo's and traded it to CFC so they could mass upgrade and invade GWT.

What I am starting to find disturbing though is this team's immedate disgust at any tactic that GCA-GWT uses. Sure, we know Lucky is the lowest of the low but I think we are also extremely biased on things to argue about. If CGN or CFC had used this tactic we probably wouldn't feel so disgusted. In the end, I feel that it is CGN who is acting like the whiners only because GWT has always been one step ahead of them.

I honestly think Poly should stay neutral in this issue in the UN and would only recommend Mongoose to look closely into the save to ensure that the only thing happening are ships passing and nothing else which can be truly considered "exploitative".

-MZ

	10-03-2004 03:59									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm not as mad as I was yesterday (and I'll freely admit alot of my initial reaction was pent up frustration with GWT/GCA).

I still personally think its an exploit to trade a city back and forth every turn. However, I don't feel strongly enough to care if the majority feels otherwise.

	10-03-2004 05:51									#26
	Put an end to popups!

All I read was the first post.

ENOUGH OF THIS GOD D@M BULL$HIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to back CGN to the hilt on this, this endless stream of exploits is making a mockery of this game.

IT NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry but I felt the need to vent on this one Arny, this is getting absoulutely ridiculous.

	10-03-2004 06:54									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

We're in chat with Mongoose about this right now.

	10-03-2004 06:56									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 All I read was the first post. ENOUGH OF THIS GOD D@M BULL$HIT!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to back CGN to the hilt on this, this endless stream of exploits is making a mockery of this game. IT NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry but I felt the need to vent on this one Arny, this is getting absoulutely ridiculous.

That's perfectly fine. The feedback of the team was exactly what I was hoping to solicit by posting this thread. I need to know just what everyone on the team thinks and how passionate they are about it. That will help in trying to work with GWT and CGN on an acceptable ruling (or, at the very least, with Mongoose).

	10-03-2004 07:39									#29
	Remove this text

Ok, update folks.

We've talked to Mongoose at length about this issue (chatlog will be posted shortly) and here's how it's going to go:

* Mongoose has brought the issue up with a new post at the U.N. He has stated that while he has his own opinion on the issue and is able to make a ruling should the teams fail to work this out among ourselves, he would prefer for us to come to our own agreement that we are willing to live with.

* Aidun, on behalf of Apolyton, is contacting GWT (since we believe they are likely to be far more reasonable than GCA) to see if we can work out a solution to this issue which is fair.

* It is suggested that the Apolyton ambassadors to other teams (ZargonX and WhiteBandit for CFC, conmcb25 for GCN) see what the opinions of those teams are and let Aidun know that so that he can bring that up in his talks with GWT. Ultimately, if an agreement can be reached with GWT that at least CFC and perhaps CGN can live with, GCA is going to be stuck with it, really (and I doubt that GCA would differ with GWT's stance in any case).

* In the meantime, it appears that CGN may play on with the save in the next 24 hours or so, but should they do so that does not end this issue. It must still be handled or Mongoose will make his own ruling.

--------------

In terms of other things, the WW issue still needs to be handled with GWT. If we can wrap up both issues and pass an agreement at the U.N., that should help the game immensely.

	10-03-2004 07:46									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The suggestion that cities gifted be forcefully "kept" at least 3 turns is actually quite reasonable. It would perhaps limit the exploitative behaviour.

We should also make it very clear that we cannot allow use of city infrastructure for temporary giftings.