Galactic Magnate logo  
   
 
Forums Home Register FAQ Website  
 
 

Forums home Forum Rules and Game Rules Deliberate non-trading poll - Penalty guidelines
Display posts from previous:   
      All times are GMT  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

 
Should non-trading rule be kept, removed or changed?
Continue with the current rule as posted below in the quote
46%
 46%  [ 6 ]
Keep non-trading rule but make changes - please post suggestions
15%
 15%  [ 2 ]
Non-trading rule should be stopped completely
38%
 38%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 13
      Back To Top  

Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:48 pm
Author Message
trace567
Guest





Post subject: Deliberate non-trading poll - Penalty guidelines Reply with quote

This poll will run for 30 days. The results will directly influence if the non-trade rule should be kept but changed, remain the same, or be stopped completely.

If you select that changes should be made, if possible please post suggestions for this.

So far since it being re-introduced there has been no occasion where it has been enforced.


Quote:
Deliberate Non-Trading

A ruling of non- trading penalty will only be issued on rare occasions when it can be proved without doubt that the user deliberately sabotaged their own game by refusing a fair and beneficial trade simply to ruin the other players game, for no apparent reason.
For instance a user might say - I will never trade with you because I don't like you.
I will not trade with you as I do not like how you play.

25% point reduction to be given, and ban if necessary if user is frequently and deliberately spiteful toward others. Again graded system applies.

No punishment will be issued under the following grounds:

1) New user, or unfamiliar user to multi games
2) User feels trading will not improve their position enough (via chat)
3) User feels trading would not be the right thing to do, either because the trade offer is too poor and unfair. Or the two users simply cannot come to a acceptable agreement of what is fair. (via chat and or trade log)
5) The user has either been attacked in game with insults or abuse etc, or bombarded with trade offers, be they good offers or not by the person reporting. Nobody likes to be thrown trade offer after trade offer.
6) User obviously was distracted in game for some reason (chat)
7) If the reporter was involved in a cheat/unfair trade earlier within the game
8 ) If the player who refused to trade finishes the game in a higher rank position than the reporter, therefore meaning by not trading they did advance past their opponent.
9) The player had other alternative options within the game other than to trade with that user. For example they maybe waiting to land a 3rd property, or have other users of which they may wish to trade with in due course.
Basically it must be demonstrated that the user had no other alternative options in order to improve their end ranking.


Last edited by trace567 on Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
      Back To Top  

Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:22 pm
Author Message
ranban282
Ex Moderator


Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 171

Post subject: Reply with quote

I strongly support penalizing embargoes for two reasons - It was there in Kreso's original rules, and embargo cheaters can absolutely ruin games. The qualifying rules are reasonably fair - I would support removing/modifying clauses (5) and (6) - bombarding trade offers carry their own penalty - it shouldn't affect a player's judgement of a trade, and a player should be playing GM with his full attention - we do not take into account these things when we punish cheat trades, do we?
      Back To Top  

Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:08 am
Author Message
fingerbun
Planet


Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney

Post subject: Reply with quote

Only if a player can be proven without doubt they are not trading due to a 'grunge' or intent to ruin a game. This can probably only be proved via chat.

Every player has their own interpretations of the game and its functions. If a player does not want to trade simply because they dont truly believe the trade to be beneficial or lack the understanding, they should not be banned.

In real life if people were punished for being naive or stupid, everyone would be in jail.
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG!
      Back To Top  

Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:25 pm
Author Message
trace567
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

No ban's are given for non-trading, just point reduction of 25% UNLESS it is proven that the player is doing so out of a grudge or deliberate intent to ruin games repeatedly.
      Back To Top  

Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:40 pm
Author Message
CYN
Admin
Admin


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 1407
Location: United States

Post subject: IMO Reply with quote

IMO a ban or reduction should never be given for not trading unless it is blatantly out of spite via chat. Just because others think a trade is fair the one not trading may have a totally different strategy in mind.
_________________
CYN

ITS ALL GOOD
      Back To Top  

Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:40 pm
Author Message
molecule
Planet


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 1269

Post subject: Reply with quote

i have to agree that a ban or point reduction is not the way to go, unless it is out of spite and can be proven that the player is trying to ruin the game. suppose a trade is offered that may be beneficial to you but would definately give the winning spot to your opponent, i would hesitate to accept personally, and probably only take it if there was no other choice than to accept a lesser position.
      Back To Top  

Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:33 pm
Author Message
trace567
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

I've extended the poll time since the votes are not indicating a clear over all verdict here.
2 for continue with current - 1 vote to keep but alter (so 3 for retaining a non trading rule)
4 votes for stopping it completely.
So only 1 vote in it!
      Back To Top  

Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:35 pm
Author Message
theunknownamus
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops... Looks like I just tied the ends now. Laughing
      Back To Top  

Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:40 pm
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

I voted to keep and amend them. That's because I would like to see the rule:

1. Defined as originally written by Kreso: http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5168&highlight=trade+embargo

and

2. Enforced where the evidence is strong that both players would have been better off with a trade, but one player made no effort to trade and rebutted all offers.

In the rules as described at the top of this post, the evidence seems to be exclusively obtainable via confession in the chat box. That's the reason noone has ever been stupid enough to get caught.

But there are cases where experienced players are more determined to block an opponent from getting first, than they are concerned with improving their own position.

I do not understand why we have the need for a written confession for applying this rule, when we could simply have the rule applied whenever an embargo is obvious, just as we presently do for active cheating.

ie: When one party can be seen to be "cutting off their nose to spite their face", and the end positions show that that player has damaged their own prospects, just to hurt or send a message to an opponent, that's a trade embargo.

Points 1-7, and point 9 at the top of this thread would also still apply as good reasons not to punish a trade embargo. Point 8, though, should be canned - if the "refuser" finishes second from last, and the "proposer" finishes last, and if it is also obvious they both could have done better by trading, then it is not relevant that the "refuser" beat the "proposer" - the refuser was cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I repeat, as ever, that the evidence should be strong that an embargo occurred. However, it need not be by written confession - that's just primitive.
      Back To Top  

Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:04 pm
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

I mean, let's say you think that a trade would help you, but would help the opponent more, and maybe let them leapfrog you in the end-rankings. What do you do?

It's perfectly fine to send a counter-offer that redresses the balance, to try to improve your rank while also maintaining a lead over that particular opponent.

But is it OK just to not trade, and not send any counter-offers? And force the two of you into a "battle for last place"?

Clearly, it can't be, unless you think that even with a trade, the two of you would still be in a battle for last place.

The rules of the game state you are supposed to be trying to finish with as high a rank as possible, and you are instead choosing to just suffocate one opponent, and yourself lose points in the process.

It's only OK to kill-off or keep down an opponent, if you think that will improve your end rank overall. It's not OK to do it just so you finish ahead of that one particular opponent, and to disregard your position in relation to the other players in the game, and in effect, to "let the others win".

900th post Embarassed
      Back To Top  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


      Back To Top  

Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Avalanche style by What Is Real © 2004