Players, subs and spoilers

[Beam]

Imo we need some simple guideline to tackle spoilers in relation to Pitboss games.

I really like Pitboss because it keeps moving day after day but having enough and good subs is key for that. Since Pitboss games can run over a year someone not even playing Civ IV atm could be a enthousiastic sub in a couple of months.

And I like maintaining spoilers for others and myself to enjoy. But I don't want a situation where someone who has read my spoiler can't sub anymore.

So imo we need a simple guideline like:
- The main active players in a pitboss never read other players spoilers.
- Same for active subs.
- Someone can only sub if he/she hasn't read a spoiler of that Pitboss less than 4 weeks ago.

Just some initial thoughts. Feel free to comment. :)

Imo it still is a good idea that players looking for a sub announce so and who it will be.

[Stapel]

The mentioned ideas do not only appear right for me, they also appear quite logical and normal.

[Robboo]

I'd like to present another option...


Trust the subs to play objectively since they dont have a stake in the game. IF you cant trust people..whats the point in making a spoiler to begin with.

[Whomp]

I think the only problem I can see is when someone is called away without notice and needs someone in short order.
Honestly, I'm not a good enough player to suggest people avoid my spoilers. I need all the help I can get so I don't have a problem with anyone who qualifies as a sub view my spoilers.

I trust the people here and if someone's going to give another player info then I feel it will be recognized.

As of right now I've played turns for Shabba in the CDZ game and haven't looked (and won't look) at anyone else's spoilers.

[mauer]

I believe all the regulars here to be quite trustworthy and honest. The problem I could see though, is the following example.

Civ A ask me to fill in for him. I've read Civ B's spoiler and know he's gonna sneak attack or has a behind the scene deal with Civ C against Civ A. Do I let the information that Civ A wouldn't have ordinarily known affect my fill in game play? Even if I don't, I could still see the objection of the other players involved in the game, which is why I said in the other thread that I understand Beam's objection. Again though, it comes down to how much do you trust the regulars here.

[BCLG100]

I have no problem with anyone subbing for me if they have read others spoilers/been active in the game, i trust whoever subs for me to play objectivly and i generally leave (vague) outlines of what i want to happen anyways.

I also have no problem with anyone subbing for me then going on to sub for someone else as i trust they will not give away information about my civ to them.

Main players not reading each others spoilers is just obvious imo.

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Robboo

Trust the subs to play objectively since they dont have a stake in the game. IF you cant trust people..whats the point in making a spoiler to begin with.
Hear, hear! [hammer]

Subs can be trusted, since they don't have a big drive to win, because it's not their civ, not their 'baby'.

As GOTM admin, and as MP-player I did see the most trustworthy people turn into cheaters, so in that sense I don't trust anyone. Yet I have no choice but to act to trust, to maintain the fun.

[Stapel]

It's not about trusting others. It's a simple fact that if a sub has read the thread of an opponent, he has info that he can AND WILL use. It is IMPOSSIBLE to act as if you do not have info. If it's just for one or two turns, then there is no issue: the sub will simply carry out specific orders. But that doesn't work with subbing for a week or longer. Decisions need to be made! And somewhere in the back of a human brain, info that is available but not to be used, is processed, without conscience, into the next steps of a game.

It's not about trust. I find it quite weird it is put forward like that.....