May he who wants to stop playing delegate permanently?

[fran]

Corbeau is obviously not able to read, understand or act according to the rules as laid down on the LT Website http://longturn.org/rules/

Corbeau declared he will not play anymore:
(T74 - 07:11:16) Corbeau has connected from iskon5919.duo.carnet.hr (player Corbeau).
(T74 - 07:15:15) <Corbeau> Oh, well. Attacked from three players in the same turn. I guess I'm done here.
(T74 - 07:15:27) <Corbeau> See you all in the next game, I guess.
(T74 - 07:22:33) <Corbeau> /aitoggle: You are not allowed to use this command.
(T74 - 07:22:49) <Corbeau> If the admin would please do this.
(T74 - 07:22:55) <Corbeau> Thank you.
(T74 - 07:23:29) Lost connection: Corbeau from iskon5919.duo.carnet.hr (client disconnected) (player Corbeau).

He confirms that as follows:
(T75 - 22:29:07) <Corbeau> Anyway, I'm off. Delegated to kryon, probably won't be connecting here anymore.

This means that rule 4.3 does apply: If a player does not want to, or cannot play anymore he should inform the other players. His nation will either be removed or given away.
Rule 5.1 about delegations does not apply, because Corbeau is not unable but unwilling to continue playing. This is explicitly stated in 5.3. Furthermore it is clear that Corbeau is not willing to resume playing as rule 5.5 demands.
Out of this reasons delegation to Kryon is illegal. What is more, Kryon as the enemy of my alliance by that illegal delegation gets invaluable information about our map and stance, that probably is by no means available to him and his allies.

Therefor I demand to immediately lock out the player Corbeau from LT37 so that he can do no further harm. What's more, I call up Kryon not to use the offered delegation.
According to rule 4.3 the nation of Corbeau might be given away.

Of course this means that the delegation has to be removed ASAP.

[dx486]

fran is right in my opinion. The rules are clear.

I am not in any way related to the above mentioned conflicts. I just wanted to state my opinion.

[wieder]

Now we need a replacement player for Corbeau if he really is not playing.

Delegating while searching for a replacement player is not forbidden. Anyone not playing and interested in replacing Corbeau and playng for his nation should reply here. I will talk with akfaew about the replacement process.

In any case we also need a confirmation from Corbeau that he is not going to play the game. He has logged on since posting that.

In any case two players should not control the same account at the same turn and delegations should be more than one turn long. If the delegation continues for too long time (was it 10 turns??) a nation can be given away.

[fran]

Now we need a replacement player for Corbeau ...

No, we do not need a replacement player for Corbeau, what we need is a admin that does not play the game and therefor is able to judge in this issue independently ...

[wieder]

In this case I will consult akfaew about this.

Players can keep playing or not keep playing. Replacing idlers has been done on the past just like replacing those who have stopped playing.

There are very few limitations about delegating nations.

[fran]

In this case I will consult akfaew about this.

Players can keep playing or not keep playing. Replacing idlers has been done on the past just like replacing those who have stopped playing.

There are very few limitations about delegating nations.

oh my, to make it very clear:

wieder wrote the following http://forum.longturn.org/post.php?tid=701&qid=6532 :

Instead you can do several things if you don't want to play any more.

You can turn the production to defensive units, making the attack more expensive. You can delegate to the enemy of your worst enemy. You can sell all the best buildings making the attack less profitable. Or you can build settlers and shrink the cities. Or something else.

And this is clearly against the rules as laid down on the LT website. Wieder gave illegal advise, because he is party.
If a player does not want to play anymore, he MAY NOT DELEGATE according to the rules.
This is exactly the motivation of wieder as is of corbeau: Not to continue playing but to harm somebody by delegation,
and this is forbidden by the rules. Now wieder has different opinion. Of course, his good right.

BTW, an independent judge also might consider deleting Corbeau.
Or to do nothing at all. But the delegation is illegal by motive, as clearly was expressed on chat and forum.

[wieder]

There is a difference between not wanting to play anymore and not playing anymore.

Corbeau asked for AI setup and that's not possible. He also returned to the game.

In any case Corbeau should confirm that he is not going to play if that is still what he plans to do. After that his nation can be given away or deleted. Meanwhile I see no reason why delegation wouldn't be an option.

However Dorbeau should not delegate if he will continue to play.

[Corbeau]

Oh my, what a jumble I've created Some people really want to win no matter what.

Ok, first, to make things clearer. After I made that declaration, I did log in occasionally, but only to chat, I did not really play. I apologise for that part of the confusion.

Also, I wasn't aware of those rules. And, funny enough, now that you listed them, I still don't understand what the issue is about. Sure, I get that some written rules were broken by letter, but I don't understand what part of fair-play was broken in spirit. And guess what: I don't care. I see that some people here are pissed because things didn't turn out how they planned. Also, I am aware that ignorance of rules is not the excuse and that, if you have those rules, and if they are broken, then it is clear that they are broken (if they are).

So, in all, it's a jumble. Since I'm not into untying jumbles, I propose a simple solution: before any harm is done (and by "harm", I mean breaking of the rules, even though I'm not sure what the he they are meant for and what is the point of this), I propose that I resume my playing as a regular player. Then I will do my moves and my decisions legally, inside the game, no delegation, I continue playing, everybody happy, no?

And how I will ally myself in-game is nobody's business, correct?

[fran]

... Meanwhile I see no reason why delegation wouldn't be an option. ...

So let me explain once again why it is "no option" according to the rules.

If you make a rule, you don't do it to let questions open. If that happens, it's a fault of the rule.
If there are rules about delegation, I expect them to tell me all I need to know in order not to do something illegal.
So the rules need to tell me all I have to know about delegation, and indeed they do.

5. Delegations

1. If unable to do his moves a player should delegate control of his nation.
2. Passwords are secret. Sharing passwords with other players is forbidden.
3. Delegation should occur only when really necessary, and canceled as soon as the player is able to do his moves
again.
4. In team games delegating to players from outside of the team is forbidden.
5. Controlling two nations for too long is frowned upon. If the original player is away for too long his nation may be
removed or given away to someone else.

This tells me I should delegate if I'm UNABLE to play. This is what delegation is all about according to the rule. Period.

Now you say

There are very few limitations about delegating nations.

and that can't be the meaning of rule 5.1 because that would open up a plethora of possibilities to cheat in the game.
For example you can tell 20 of your friends to register for the next game, let them play a few turns, and afterwards delegating their nations to you. Even if you restrict that to 10 turns, as you now brought up a restriction, which you intentionally left out in your answer to Corbeau, it would perhaps enable you to gain profit from it.

What is more, if a player wants to stop playing, IT NEVER CAN BE NECESSARY NOR POSSIBLE to delegate
according to rule 5.3. First, a player not playing has no necessities and second, he never will do his moves again.

About Corbeau I just can know what Corbeau is telling me and Corbeau told twice on chat he stopped playing.
Of course he can change his mind, but the motive for delegation was him to stop playing, and that is illegal.

[wieder]

Someone may be unable to play because he or she doesn't want to play anymore. Now this may be permanent or temporary. In most cases stuff like this has been temporary and delegation is the way to go.

To permanently stop playing someone should really make it cleat that this is the case.

[wieder]

Also, controlling more than 2 nations at the same time is forbidden.

[fran]

I guess we agree it makes no sense on the one hand to forbid one player to play with more than one account and on the other hand to allow him to control x nations by having x-1 permanent delegations from other fake players.

[Corbeau]

Fake players?

[wieder]

It's forbidden to play one game with several accounts and it's also forbidden to have a delegation of several nations. Only one nation can be delegated to on player.

[fran]

You never have rules for the sake of having rules. There needs to be a problem to be solved or a goal to be reached. So why have delegation?

1. Delegation as a means to help a player that gets temporarily unable to play the game and is willing to resume as fast as possible. After all, by registering you click yes to something like "I declare that I will not become an idler", right? This is obviously what the author of the rules 5.1 to 5.5 had in mind. If you embrace the actual wording of that rules is nother question. This rules out that you delegate a) permanently and b) because you are unwilling but not unable to play.

2. Delegation as a means to protect the game by reducing the number of idlers. Meanwhile I think perhaps there should be distinguished between single player and team games. In team games perhaps there is a point in allowing players that stop playing to delegate permanently and without particular reason, especially if it's a two teams game. You're at the team from the very beginning, maybe not even voluntarily, and thus it could be viewed just unfair if the team suffers from somebody going idle. If a player can at most control one additional nation, that would mean that 50% of the players could go idle and the team still could be fully operational by delegation.

3. Delegation as a means to facilitate joint military operations for players that wish to do so. As I understand it now, that seems to be unwanted, because delegation needs to last at least one turn. BTW, what is "one turn"? If delegation starts right after TC and ends right before TC (say 22h), that is no turn? And if it starts 10min before TC and ends right after TC (say 10min) this is a turn? If this rule shall make a difference, duration of delegation should contain at least 2 TCs.

4. Delegation as a possibility for a player that wants to stop playing to leave a heritance for somebody else. I don't see why that should be allowed.


In my not so humble opinion the above no. 2 to 4 are incompatible with the current wording of no. 5 of the rules.
After all it's save to say that no.5 of the rules is incomplete, because it does not list important things that are forbidden.
Maybe it's also outdated if it does not reflect the current view of the community on the issue. Perhaps they are no
rules at all but mere etiquette or a crude mixture of both.

I would appreciate it if the question of a) duration and b) reason for delegation could be clarified.
Personally I would go for above no. 1 for single player and perhaps above no. 2 for team games.

[wieder]

Well yeah, the basic idea of a delegation is to allow the game to continue while someone is away or can't play for some other reason. In the past this has worked reasonably well even for situations where someone simply feels like the game is not fun to play but decides to return after some time.

A delegation should last for at least two turn changes but this is not an absolute requirement. You can delegate right after the tc and let someone else do the moves and then return after the next tc. However two different players are not allowed to control the same nation at the same turn. The players should use common sense for doing this.

We don't have really that great penalties for breaking the rules. We can give a warning and perhaps even suspend an account for a while. Suggestions are welcome but they should be easy to implement.

A delegation may last for a week or two but for a longer time we would need a really good explanation. Common sense. It's very hard to decide exact limitations. You are welcome to propose solutions for different situations.

Might actually make sense for a two team game to have less strict rules for delegations. For example letting someone to get a delegation of an idler even at T0 (T0 is extended turn) for the time of finding a replacement player. But this should be decided in advance.