06-10-2003 05:29									#31
	Got spare money?

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?

	06-10-2003 05:52									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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 ....

	07-10-2003 05:15									#34
	Tired of ads?

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....

Last edited by checkMate on 07-10-2003 at 05:26

	08-10-2003 03:50									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

* FlameFlash shurgs.

	08-10-2003 05:11									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash * FlameFlash shurgs.

I long suspected you were a shurger...

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

	08-10-2003 05:23									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	08-10-2003 15:49									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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?

	08-10-2003 16:51									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	08-10-2003 17:16									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

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

	08-10-2003 17:55									#41
	Put an end to popups!

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

	08-10-2003 18:02									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

You mean that's allowed?

	12-10-2003 04:15									#43
	Put an end to popups!

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 ).

	12-10-2003 04:18									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

	12-10-2003 08:51									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

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...

Last edited by checkMate on 12-10-2003 at 09:27

	12-10-2003 12:20									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	12-10-2003 14:54									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	12-10-2003 18:46									#48
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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?

	13-10-2003 00:09									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	13-10-2003 00:43									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	13-10-2003 01:47									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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

	13-10-2003 02:40									#52
	Put an end to popups!

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

Yep, thats the idea.

	13-10-2003 21:28									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	14-10-2003 05:44									#55
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	14-10-2003 17:28									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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

quote: Originally posted by checkMate Looking at the partners turn is a highly irregular practice.

I disagree.

quote: 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

quote: 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.

	14-10-2003 17:44									#57
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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

	14-10-2003 17:53									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	14-10-2003 18:02									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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).

	14-10-2003 23:28									#60
	Remove this text

quote: 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?

quote: Originally posted by Mathemagician you sound too much like a lawyer too me.

I do?