Splendid, welcome to the game @terrific, @Maharani and @Feijoa 
Now that we have six players, we can start playing. Should we pause the game on weekends? Also I propose to randomly choose the teams and which players share a second colour.
I’ll wait one more day to see if more people want to join / if rules questions come up, then we’ll start 
1 Like
I thought about the rules and am concerned about a few things that might be related.
First, it seems like there’s a danger of accidentally ending up in scoring, for example if everyone suicides, which doesn’t seem very Go-like.
Second, there’s nothing much like a normal ko feature, blocking someone from immediately recapturing a single stone, as long as it’s recaptured with new colors or there’s action elsewhere on the board.
Third, presenting the board diagrams seems difficult when there is a potential for complicated interactions between stones that then get removed. You might find yourself having to post two board images per move, to show what happened.
If captured or at least the suicided stones could somehow stay on the board until the next round, maybe that could address these issues? (I recently proposed something like this as a delayed capture rule for normal go.)
3 Likes
How about this rule instead of superko: if a board position repeats, either of the teams can declare the game to be a draw, but if both teams agree on continuing, then the game continues.
This is fine, it’s simultaneous go, ko is not really a thing in simultaneous go.
We did this with the diplomatic go game.
I think a delayed capture would make the game feel even less like Go. Probably the team aspect and the simultaneous moves already make this game tricky enough.
3 Likes
I’d be okay with 24 hours per move, but it seems a little fast to me. Depending on time zones the discussion might come short.
3 Likes
Is this a problem? It certainly seems possible that players “stumble” into counting, but I can’t imagine that it will happen frequently. The scoring rules define how to count any position, so players can determine how the game would conclude if scoring proceeded, and keep the possibility in mind when making decisions.
The Ko / Superko rule are designed to prevent the game from repeating itself indefinetely. In a game with multiple players, capturing one stone in a ko shape itself does not necessarily result in a repetition of position. I tried to take countermeasures against infinite cycles by defining the repetition of the position as a condition to go to scoring.
Yes, I will post as many board pictures as necessary to appropriately present what happened. Also I’ll reveal all move submissions, so you can check if I made a mistake 
On first thought this seems like a sensible ruling to me, but on second thought … what happens if one team simply refuses to go to scoring? Eventually a repetition of position has to occur, so would this not be a strategy to always force a draw?
Let’s vote:
Time for Move Submissions (players only)
- 24h
- 48h
0
voters
Pause on Weekends? (players only)
- Yes
- No
0
voters
1 Like
Isn’t this similar to how one can delay a loss by playing everything possible on the board until there’s no moves left? In this case the refusing team is being childish and should be reprimanded 
I’m fine with any timing, but I would like rounds to progress as soon as @martin3141 has received all move submissions. With some other fixed time games, it sometimes took forever for the day to progress, while it was already clear what was going to happen.
2 Likes
We can of course turn it around: if a position repeats, either team can decide to continue, or both can decide to draw. If a position repeats three times, it’s automatically a draw.
3 Likes
Whoever voted on the second poll; I’m sorry, I had to make a new one to make it public.
//Edit: I added a rule which handles premature player dropout. Hopefully it won’t be relevant, but I feel that it should be in place, just in case.
1 Like
I think there is still the issue where one side could force a draw by refusing to move to counting. In my opinion the rules should guarantee that the game eventually moves to counting.
2 Likes
In normal Go it’s childish because everyone knows it’s going to eventually end in a loss, and you’re just delaying the inevitable. That wouldn’t be the case here - in fact it would be childish of the other player to keep going when the game is obviously going to end in a draw.
1 Like
How about this as a compromise?
“If the position repeats, the game proceeds to counting unless both teams agree to continue playing.”
1 Like
Why would the winning team agree to continue?
How about on the second repeat it proceeds to counting? You might pass or play suicide while not expecting everyone else to, but once you see that they did, you want to try one more thing. Also, this makes it more like the two passes rule in normal Go.
4 Likes
If scoring would result in a tie that neither team favours. Also winning is not the only motivation for playing, so I’m sure there are many possible reasons.
1 Like
Ok, so instead of draws, just going to scoring would mean the players have to then agree on the life / death of the groups on the board. How are we going to solve these disputes?
1 Like
I didn’t think the rules allowed for any death by declaration at the end. You have to actually kill everything. (Which makes sense since it’s going to be really hard to know what’s actually dead.)
2 Likes
I think it is essentially like pure Tromp-Taylor scoring, where we would have to play out the capture of dead stones, which I think is probably the only clean way to figure out what is actually alive vs dead.
The possibility of the repetition rule prematurely ending the encore, before all capturable stones are removed, means that each team has to be careful about how to play out the encore while avoiding an all-suicides move that ends it earlier by accident. In practice, I think such cases would be rare (and might be easily preventable by designating one player to use their move to fill in territory), but I find the possibility that they could arise quite interesting.
2 Likes
Not all players have voted in the polls, but the results are already decisive, so let’s get this game started, shall we
For transparency allow me to explain how I will choose the teams and who each player shares a secondary colour with: There are six player slots Player Slot 1, Player Slot 2 … Player Slot 6. All odd-numbered player slots are in one team, all even-numbered slots are in the other team. Furthermore Player Slot 1 shares a secondary colour with Player Slot 2, 3 with 4 and 5 with 6. I would like to leave the choice of which colours to use to you, the players, the only restriction being that the colours are distinct.
Now that the base structure is established, we need to randomly determine which player will take which slot. In order of entering (Vsotvep, Jon_Ko, yebellz, terrific, Maharani, Feijoa), I will have discobot roll a die, and the respective player will take the x-th free slot, where x is the result of the die roll.
@discobot roll 1d6
2 Likes
6