 |
| |
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
FP is proposing this letter to either FortyJ direct or posting it at the UN:
quote:
This is the potential letter PAL is considering sending. There are two concerns we would like to discuss with you - firstly, if this letter should be sent only to FortyJ, or posted to the entire forum, and secondly, we would like to ask if the Nation of Apolyton would be willing to cosign this letter with us. We are of the feeling that FortyJ may be playing fast and loose with his administrative rights and privileges at this point, particularly given the VERY coincidental timing of his desired investigation of the naming rule, and the desperate renaming attempt by CDG's fleeing vessels. Letter follows.
quote:
To any and all interested parties:
When this game began, the People's Army of the Ladder pointedly chose to abstain on any and all rules discussions that were not evenly split simply because our feeling was, "Let us agree to the same rules and play the game." The ladder community is, by virtue of the many variants played in MP, a flexible and fun-loving bunch. What we cannot countenance, however, and what the ladder community has never tolerated, is the flouting of those rules, either in spirit or letter, once they have been agreed upon.
Twice already, curious situations have occurred where team CDG has tread upon the line of the rule, and even though the feeling amongst PAL (and indeed, amongst other teams in both cases) was that if a rule had not been broken, it surely had been badly bent, a request for examination of gameplay by PAL was heard and our concerns rejected by the game administrators. Recognizing the difficulty of game administration, the ladder community is also known for its "the ruling has been made, play on" attitude. As a result, we did not make any further issue in either case, though we were puzzled by the rulings themselves; we accepted the ruling and continued to play. Our place was not to judge - only to accept and play on.
Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in this situation again, and this time we feel the situation is a good bit more clear, but we are concerned that the administrator may have some curious interaction with the issue before we even bring it forward.
The situation stands thusly...
The nation of CDG is now a two-boat empire. We believe that one, not both, of those vessels carries a settler. We originally knew through interaction with our ally that one of the vessels - the one we were relatively certain did NOT have a settler - was named "Galley." The other, the one that we established DID have a settler, was named "Mayflower." Galley was constructed a minor distance from Mayflower, and reached its position in three turns. At the end of the last viewable turn, we saw the boats "Galley" and "Mayflower" sitting side-by-side in the same square. For obvious reasons, we had an interest in determining which vessel was which.
At the opening of the next turn, we find these two desperate runaways in the same tile again, but now both bearing the same name: "Mayflower." We can think of one, and only one reason to do this: to deceive another team as to the exact nature of these vessels. Specifically, to mask which boat might be carrying the settler, and which boat is not.
Examine this rule....
2.4 - Misleading through Renaming
Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.
Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.
Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.
Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this rule cannot be more clearly broken. Our team is now misled and confused. CDG clearly, deliberately, and intentionally renamed a unit to that of an identical unit solely and only with the purpose of deception, by masking the nature of which boat is which.
it is irrelevant that the settler can be moved from vessel to vessel. It is also irrelevant - though hardly honorable - that this team is attempting to sneak away with a single settler in an elimination game, delaying their certain destruction and slowing the game further. It is somewhat irrelevant - though certainly concerning - that the game's administrator, who happens to belong to the hosting site, carrying the same name as the badly beaten and fleeing team, opened a thread discussing a possible revamp of the rule of unit naming at precisely the time this very shady unit renaming must have occurred. We are not making accusations against the administrator, but one must understand that this is a most curious time and manner for an administrator to take interest in the rule. What matters here is the principle: three times now, the spirit of a rule has been violated. For the third time, CDG has chosen to act in a desperate and shady manner.
PAL is not a nation of whiners; we simply want to play clearly, above the board, using the same rules for everyone.
Three times now we have been gravely concerned about the legality of the hosting nation's play. Three times now, at critical junctures for all involved, the hosting nation has taken a path which is, at best, morally curious.
The question now remains: will three times now, they get away with their actions?
The Nation of PAL |
|
The funny thing is FortyJ has launched a thread asking about an ammended rules change on this particular rule at this very time.
http://cdgroup.org/forums/site/mpm/viewtopic.php?t=225
Something doesn't exactly smell right here.
So what do we want to do?
F-P is asking if we want to co sign the letter?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
On the contrary, I feel that we should cosign, or even make a harsher letter. On the two other occasions, the rules clearly were bent, not broken. Here we have a case a a clearly broken rule as it is written.
Lets look at the description of the rule again:
quote:
Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents. |
What possible purpose could there have been in changing the name of one unit to match that of another? The only way I could see this as even a remote possibility would have been if both were named "Galley" as that is excatly what they are. However, as they have both been named "Mayflower" this is clearly done with the sole purpose of confusing and misleading. If they truly did want both ships named "Mayflower", why didn't they name them Mayflower and Mayflower II? Personally, I would like to see anytype of naming thread or at least hear the reason for this name change.
Now lets look at the purpose of this rule:
quote:
Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features. |
Again, the renaming of both of these vessels to "Mayflower" could only serve one purpose: to confuse another team through use of in-game features. This is a blantant violation of this purpose.
Lastly, lets look at the verdict:
quote:
Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule. |
The feature being used is renaming. In the defination portion, they listed examples of this rule, but did not (could not) list all variations of this. This feature has been used soley for the purpose of misleading. I have not seen a more clear violation in any of the games that have been played.
Now, as to the timing of the thread, I think nothing of it. What appears to have happened is that there was a big discussion in CDG about how to live a bit longer and the topic of renaming came up and was discussed. FortyJ, having access to that forum might have seen the discussion going on and decided to make a thread on it to try to ease any possible problems. I do not see any problems with the timing and see no reason to question where FortyJ's loyalties lie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
but what if both galleys were loaded to the max (i.e. each of them having two units)?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:18
|
|
If PAL wants to complain, then I'm fine with that, and I think we should be too. However, I fail to see what it would do beyond serving as an example. CDG will not be eliminated for this, and they don't really have anything left to lose by a turn missed, I believe, unless they are somehow keeping tabs on PAL's Galleys' whereabouts, they are running in the dark.
We should certainly agree that this is a rule violation in our eyes also - I really don't think we can let this sort of thing go, because it sets the uncomfortable precedent for a hypothetical time that it may become an important deception.
All in all, I don't think we will gain anything from making a complaint beyond a clarification of this rule, and to ensure that the painstakingly-worked-on rules are adhered to as much as possible. But I think that in itself is a reason to agree with PAL should they push the issue. I just don't think we need put any more effort into it at this stage.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-11-2004 21:38
|