Tournament rules poll: Demanding withdrawal?

[Tau Ceti]

Well, that is one voluminous document from mark here, and one from Mis in my mailbox. Looks like it will be a very long first post in the vote thread.

A couple of comments for mark: That is a very good summary of your arguments, but the format is not entirely what I had in mind. It does not include a rules text (though I guess there are only so many ways to say 'Demanding withdrawal via the commlink menu is not allowed' ), the style is a bit personal, and you were supposed to make a short list of arguments against the other two alternatives. For the sake of consistency, I would appreciate it if you could rewrite it a bit, cut some of the prose and make the entire argument in the list of advantages. For example,

quote: In my mind, the 'demand withdrawal' option can only be applied where both parties are willing - and we are sure that both parties are willing. If a hostile unit enters someone else's territory, there will, of course, be diplomatic repercussions. As I have earlier mentioned, the 'demand withdrawal' option can only be applied where the treaty is fully active, and both parties are willing. The defender, at this point, does not know this - and as such the option cannot be applied.

can essentially be shortened to 'Does not assume that the attacker is willing to withdraw.' The other paragraphs are somewhat more involved and need to be longer, but you get the idea. I could do the editing if you prefer, but then I might cut parts you consider to be crucial..

Anyway, thanks to both of you for helping out here, and I hope I will receive a text from Oniron as well.

[mark13]

Sorry Tau, I had assumed you wanted a summary promoting my argument, rather than criticising the other two - I shall rewrite it tomorrow ::evil grin::

[Tau Ceti]

Oh, I wanted you to write the arguments supporting your own position. But I did not want you to write the arguments against your own position. So a slight revision of the arguments you already have, plus a short list of arguments against each of the other two would be fine...

[Oniron]

Before we move to a vote, if we do, I would like to get some feedback with respect to a whacky idea I've had.

First here are two excerpts from the Datalinks:

"Technically, Blood Truce does not restrict you from entering another faction's territory, but faction leaders may not see things that way."

"A Treaty of Friendship is intended to secure a permanent and lasting friendship between two factions. [...] You may not, without diplomatic repercussions, enter the territory of a faction you have a Treaty with. [...] A Treaty of Friendship terminates only if one faction attacks another or refuses a valid demand for withdrawal."

It is obvious that the game mechanics have bound the commercial benefit of a Treaty with some territorial arrangements: you can roam, harass and threaten (but so can the other player), or you can increase your energy income (and so can he/she). The whole point of a treaty is to reward those who can respect each other's borders. Those who can, do, those who can't, get a truce.

This brings me to my proposal: add only one rule.

The rule: "If a player you have a Treaty of Friendship with offers a Truce and nothing else, you must clear your side of the negotiation screen and accept."

This would be the magic "Cancel Treaty" button people have been asking for, but it requires a full turn to take effect, which is only fair seeing how this ruling has no benefit to the defender.

All points regarding "Demand Withdrawal" become moot, because a user abusing this option will see his Treaties downgraded to Truces if the other players so desire.

If feedback to this proposal isn't positive enough, I am still happy to defend my earlier suggestion which I still favor more than the other two, and send the appropriate information to Tau Ceti.
[This message has been edited by Oniron (edited January 31, 2001).]

[buster]

Very good point from Oniron here.
Simple, fair and easy to enforce.

Makes treaties more than just an economic arrangement with a protective value equal to that of toilet paper.

Basically means that once you have entered a treaty, you are forced to declare your intentions when going to war or risk "the button".

People who find this "advance warning" unacceptable can simply not enter treaties.

If the text was added - withdraw button not allowed to be used under truce I believe all angles are covered.(I know Tau alredy said it is so, but I am not sure if it officially entered the rules yet).

[This message has been edited by buster (edited January 31, 2001).]

[Misotu]

I just created a quick hotseat game to test this. Treatied with the "other" human player. Then offered truce and accepted it. The two factions are still treatied I'm afraid.

[buster]

That will teach one to abstain from going too quickly enthusiastic.

The behaviour of the code of this game follows many a strange a path.

Pity - the idea was great. Guess I am back to voting no unless the arguments for something else are really good.

[Misotu]

Bump! I only ran the one test, but unless the results are misleading it looks like Oniron's really very good idea isn't going to fly, unfortunately. So we're back to a poll? Let's go