The demogame takes a bit more personal angle, in my opinion, and with the mods participating in the game, I think there needs to be some rules. (personally, I'm not in favor of having active players (holding a posistion during the current, or prior term) be immediately made a mod. Just look at the Shaitan-Donsig example. :)). Just to prevent this from happening again (as this game can get personal on some issues), this is what I propose:

Point 1:

1. Mods should act as referees of the game only.

2. All disputes should be taken to email/pm as if both parties were normal users of the forums. Any sense of modship should be dropped in pm, and if disputes continues, the mod and/or user can inform TF.

3. Any action should be agreed upon by all 3 mods. Hopefully, this will stem any personal issues anyone has.

4. Any permenate actions should be discussed between the mods, TF, and the users of this forum. Thus, the PIs. ;)

5. Demogame Mods must also follow the game rules, which means no permenant moderator actions unless a PI finds one is nessecary.

Point 2:

1. Any disputes that have gotten out of hand (needs to defrentiate between heated debate and chaos, though) should be handled by the closure of the forum, with a message to all parties involved. Banning/deleting/editing of posts should not even be considered.

2. If the mod is allowed to participate in the game, all modship powers stop at that posistion, and does not continue. Say a mod was having a dispute in their thread with another user. They can not go editing the posts, but must allow another mod to do so. Editing/deleting posts would show partiallity. (even closing the thread/banning the user). This goes along with the mods only enforcing the rules of the forum, and not the rules of the game.

Just to clarify why I don't like active players (within the last two turns) as mods is that it will provide a cool-down period for any prior disputes. Like Duke said, mods should just enforce forum rules, not game rules. There's another point to consider. The title of this game, afterall, is Game of Democracy. There's going to be arguments, tempers will flair. The last thing we want is a trigger-happy mod.

There is some good common sense up there but overall it would never work. Taken as a whole it would effectively unmod the mods and make this forum a self regulated city state in Civfanatics. That's not going to work. TF is also not going to debate things, that's why he makes mods.

More later perhaps...I haven't had my coffee yet. ;)

This forum will be closing soon. Do you want to move this to the G2 citizen forum?

EDIT: Never mind. Just saw your post in "needed stuff". Thread moved.

Maybe we need to get a 2/3 approval of the mods and no discussion with TF for this proposal to work?

To be honest, I am getting pretty sick of this discussion. If you feel you have been dealt with unfairly by a moderator you contact the other mod(s) or TF. Sorry, I haven't had my coffee either.

Originally posted by eyrei
To be honest, I am getting pretty sick of this discussion. If you feel you have been dealt with unfairly by a moderator you contact the other mod(s) or TF. Sorry, I haven't had my coffee either.

No kidding, I'm with you eyrei.

While I am against having moderators actively involved in the game for a number of the same reasons as Chieftess, after the recent info-poll on the subject I have resigned myself to the fact that my view on the matter is unlikely to prevail due to the large majority in favour of limited mod participation. I am therefore now more interested in finding ways to make mod involvement as painless as possible.
Rather than imposing unenforcable sets of rules upon them, I think the best thing we can do is to ask them to practice restraint, to be very aware of which ruleset, forum or demogame, the issues they deal with come under and to use their moderator powers only in the former case. To make this easier for them I would also ask the citizenry not to PM moderators regarding perceived violations of the demogame rules, but to PM either the individual concerned or a member of the Judiciary. If the member of the judiciary happens to be a mod then I would hope he or she would be able to judge which kind of action is appropriate.

@Eklektikos - Excellent points. The Judiciary is the place to go with game violations.

I agree with Eklektikos' points as well. I thought this was already resolved? Why are we having this discussion again? Shaitan and I will enforce Civfanatics rules, but the citizenry will enforce demogame rules.

Now, if a mod does not agree to sticky a thread you want stickied, which is what I think this thread is actually about, then feel free to start a discussion or informational poll on the subject of that thread. Do not start another one of these 'mod-whining' threads, please.

Originally posted by Shaitan
@Eklektikos - Excellent points. The Judiciary is the place to go with game violations.

I agree. I also am of the opinion that mods should not be active but they will be so let's play. :) I'm actually glad that Shaitan and eyrei will be playing as I value the contributions both have made in the demo games. I think as long as the mods only enforce forum rules and not demo game rules then things should be fine. I'm sure we'll have some spats now and then but what else is new?

Are you running for president again Chieftess? If you are you have my support. Your initial post in this thread is great and an example of why you are a good leader for us all! :goodjob:

Eyrei, this isn't about the sticky issue at all...

Originally posted by Chieftess
Eyrei, this isn't about the sticky issue at all...
Definitely not. We've got that in open discussion right now.

And the other reason it's reopened is that I'm such a lousy arguer (if there's such a word). :) It can take me days, even weeks (or longer - like years ;)) at times to come up with some good points for or against an idea.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Eyrei, this isn't about the sticky issue at all...

I apologize then. However, I take offense to the opening of this thread, as it assumes future wrongdoing on the part of Shaitan and I. It also ignores the fact that most citizens have no problem with mods holding judicial positions, without any special stipulations. Those few who disagree are going to have to learn to live with it until such a time as they can get the majority of the citizens to agree with their point of view. Obviously, to do this, you must post your opinion occasionally, but I expect that there be a concrete reason to do so. So, if there is not particular reason this thread was opened, I think it should be closed.

I don't have a problem with mods holding judicial posistions. :)

@Eklektikos - Excellent points. The Judiciary is the place to go with game violations.

Unless the Judiciary and mods are one :lol: Seriously, I was following everything nicely. My opinions on the matter have been stated - and I assume everyone remembers my posts ;)

Originally posted by eyrei

So, if there is not particular reason this thread was opened, I think it should be closed.

Until here. I hope you were joking, Eyrei, considering the content of this thread. This thread has a lot of relevance for the game. Chieftess came up with a proposal and we should welcome her input.

Game #1 went with little mod interference and few threats on thread closing. What here violates forum rules? I think mods should be very careful about acting as mods and really reserve their powers for blatant violations.

Originally posted by Chieftess
I don't have a problem with mods holding judicial posistions. :)

But you do want to impose defined limits on what a mod is allowed to do if they hold one of these positions. I am saying, leave it alone until it actually becomes a problem ( which I am almost certain it will not), at which point, it can already be dealt with by contacting the other mods.

Originally posted by chiefpaco


Unless the Judiciary and mods are one :lol: Seriously, I was following everything nicely. My opinions on the matter have been stated - and I assume everyone remembers my posts ;)



Until here. I hope you were joking, Eyrei, considering the content of this thread. This thread has a lot of relevance for the game. Chieftess came up with a proposal and we should welcome her input.

Game #1 went with little mod interference and few threats on thread closing. What here violates forum rules? I think mods should be very careful about acting as mods and really reserve their powers for blatant violations.

No. I was not joking. This topic was already discussed for a week or more.

Technically, I believe threads devoted to the powers of mods and complaints against mods are supposed to be confined to the site feedback forum. I didn't mind having this discussion once, but it is getting very old. If there is a problem that arises, it should be reopened, but until then it should be laid to rest.

I think it is impossible and inappropriate for we users to dictate to the Moderators when or where they can take action as a moderator.

So, while I can understand what CT is getting at, I think that it is not going to work, some of those steps infringe upon Mod duties. While we are a democracy, we are one that exists at the pleasure of TF on these forums, and his rules as applied via DoM, Shaitan, and eyrei override all.

I know that you all understand that, but I state it again to make a point. That being comments related to, "take it to the Judiciary".

If it is a dispute purely game related, involving interpretation of a law or standard, or in the matter of violations of same via public investigation, then please do take it to the judiciary.

However, if it is a dispute with a mod, a disagreement of opinions, or non-rules related conflicts. Please DO NOT take it to the Judiciary. Those are issues citizens can work out themselves.

Finally, I welcome the presence of eyrei and Shaitan as citizens, and I know that overtime they will get used to the impact their comments and actions will have just because they have the golden gavel in their back pocket. I hope that any mod disputes in the future (and I am not saying this thread is one of those) will be taken to the Site Feedback forum.

Bill

Well said, Bill_in_PDX.

I think you should show some trust in Shaitan and Eyrei and let them prove themselves. Mods actively involved in the demo game is a good thing IMO. If they don't actively participate in the game, they won't know what the game needs and they will have a hard time deciding which player/side is right when problem arises.

I trust you can settle any problems among yourselves... It's hard for me to take side because I am no expert in demo games. :o

by Eyrei
I apologize then. However, I take offense to the opening of this thread, as it assumes future wrongdoing on the part of Shaitan and I. It also ignores the fact that most citizens have no problem with mods holding judicial positions, without any special stipulations. Those few who disagree are going to have to learn to live with it until such a time as they can get the majority of the citizens to agree with their point of view. Obviously, to do this, you must post your opinion occasionally, but I expect that there be a concrete reason to do so. So, if there is not particular reason this thread was opened, I think it should be closed.
After just joining this game a couple hours ago, I can say my first impressions are that this is a very controlled and repressed environment.

Eriei, you are misguided if you take offense. The thread concerns mods and not you in particular. Tomorrow, you might not be a mod, and someone else would be. Ditto for Shaitan. You all should have thicker skin and think about the concept and process, not how individual threads and posts affect or do not affect your view, and if you take offense or not. We do not come to CFC and play Demo game to please you.

Further, mere threads do not make policy. If you are closing threads and repressing people who are discussing things, you are affecting the very outcome talked about here:
Those few who disagree are going to have to learn to live with it until such a time as they can get the majority of the citizens to agree with their point of view.
That is one of the most astonishing things I would expect to see. Not very pleasant to Demo game participants in general.

Let's look at your logic:

1. I don't like a thread.
2. I'll close the thread, post, discussion, whaever I don't like.
3. There are "few" who disagree, now.
4. They'll never get enough to agree, since they can't post.
5. And maybe those that do disagree will just leave.

IMHO, a mod should keep things running smoothly... be a facilitator.


Chieftess made an excellent post. It violates no CFC or Forum rules, and even if it did, then those ruels would be suspect to start with. The most you should be involved with (in regards to her post) is making sure it is in the correct thread, no flaming, is in keeping with Thunderfall's desires for CFC, complies with the CFC rules, etc.

Naturally, anyone, even mods, can post. Mods are CFC members like all us Peasants, and have a right to post. But by being a Mod, you also should consider more than just you own agenda.


It seems to me that the very atmosphere that was created in which this kind of topic needs to be addressed (and it does indeed need to be addressed, given what I've read so far), should point you and Shaitan to the face that there is something going on here. It is basic conflict of interest (or at the very least, the appearance of it).



I don't want to offend the 2 mods, but hey, take a look at the other Dmeo game, and how Duke of Marlbrough mods the Civ 2 Demo forum. I have never had the perception from him that when he's participating in the game that there is a blurring of lines. He does not shut down things that don't agree with his view. When he posts as a player (not a mod), then it is purely as a player, and everyone knows and respects that. On occasions when he needs to do a mod chore (and I never get the impression from him that it is a Power thing or a suffocate the dissenter thing), then he does it cleanly and professionally.

There is no atmosphere of having to anticipate and comply with daily mod opinions. If one complies with the Forum rules, and CFC rules, then you never see DoM involved. Every person has opinions, and I'm sure he has his on some game issues, but he never uses his Mod position to leverage players, tilt the game, change the rules, influence players, grind an axe, pursue private agenda, etc.


Anyway, one thing if nothing else ya'll might want to learn is that impressions are often 90% of reality. My impression so far is that one mod actaully has a Gavel for an avatar, and both seem to actively use the respect that a Mod should be accorded to influence the Democracy game. Use your own individual, CFC member persona for game participation (e.g, you are an equal citizen not a supercitizen, perhaps you even have a specific Democracy game job). Almost every thread I've been to so far seems to have a double barrel dose of active modding (dragging the players around by the nose is more like it at times), whether ya'll realize it or not. ;)


by Chieftess:
The title of this game, afterall, is Game of Democracy. There's going to be arguments, tempers will flair. The last thing we want is a trigger-happy mod.
I totally agree!! And I will emphasize the point that this is a GAME. And it is a game played for fun, and it is a game played by very young people, too... It's not a "let's agree and adulate the mod" Demo game. There is an extremely overbearing atmosphere in the 10 or so threads I've read so far. It is unfortunate, but at this point, I do not sense this is really a game in the spirit of Democracy, and I have now started to realize it's because of the almost indistinguishable Mod/player role.

:hammer:


PS, There is my own hammer. :lol: I don't want to change my Avatar. ;)

EDIT: Softened some things as a result of TF's post. :)

Starlifter, you should try to refrain from making harsh accusations this quickly. It only inflames & complicates the "problem" further. :(

You really joined this demo game a few hours ago? :eek:

by Shaitan:
There is some good common sense up there but overall it would never work. Taken as a whole it would effectively unmod the mods and make this forum a self regulated city state in Civfanatics. That's not going to work. TF is also not going to debate things, that's why he makes mods.
This a kind of repressive statement. It immediately follows the first post about a difficult-to-raise topic, and any average citizen, esp. a younger one, is gunna gain a distinct "MOD DON'T LIKE IT, I'D BETTER NOT CROSS THE MOD" impression. I sure did, and in fact deferred to Shaitan's opinion at first and was approaching this whole thread as an "it won't work" point of view my first time through it.

Others who in general suck up to mods, tread on eggshells, don't want to rock the boat, only wanna play the demo game, whatever, etc. will take those kind of "it won't work" statements as Mod gospel, and the thead is effectively repressed and probably ineffective from that point onwards. I get the impression this Demo game is run with a tight fist, and there is little tolerance for dissenting opinion, and there is little, if any, distinction between Modding and playing the game. Mods run the game thru controlling the various key aspects of the game, mods edit posts, mods jump on just about every post players make, esp. if it does not conform to the mod's own views of gameplay, and mods regularly set the tone of what they expect the players to conform to or not.

That's not going to work.

Then you might as well slam the gavel and close the thread after all. The interest of players and CFC should be the first concern.


My advice (which can be freely disregarded with no ill will on my part) would be for the Civ 3 mods to ease up, let the game and players do their roles, and stay our of things unless there is a real need to intervene. Take a look at how AoA does things in OT... I'm sure he does not like lots of opinions and posting in OT, yet he only intervenes when a line is crossed, or sometimes when it is about to be crossed, and then it's with a clear warning or action compliant with what people expect from the CFC rules. And besides, OT people are individuals, not trying to work for a team good like Demo.

Most people don't like to feel they are under a tight leash, even in a team game like Democracy. Especially in a Democracy. It is not human nature. But given this one thread alone, there seems to be a heavy thumb on players, and those that do not agree and play the game in a certain general way will be steered to the "correct" opinions... or else.


:hammer:

:)

By Thunderfall:
Starlifter, I think you should try to refrain from making harsh accusations this quickly. It only inflames & complicates the "problem" further.
I'm not trying to inflame. I joined, read the threads on the polls and have a very strong perception of what is going on. I'm not condemning anyone, but there is a very tight leash in this game. It is my opinion which is derived from experience and real life training that younger posters in particular would not have a free and open feeling of participartion. I mean, from what I see, a well respected player (and past President, Cheiftess, whom I know mainly by the annoouncements that you post from her on the main CFC entry page) effectively had a very valid and well thought out post nullified by one mod, and the other is ready to close the thread to begin with, yet comments about needing more people to support this topic to discuss it.

I see references to "Public Investivgations" of a player (Donsig), references to personal conflicts, etc. etc. I'm not judging any of this... but it is not my opinion that this is the motivation most people want to play a game of Democracy. It is certainly not what I was expecting when I signed up.

I simply wanted to come here to play and learn about Civ 3. I was not anticipating this, so naturally I made my comments, none of which have any personal insults or inflammatory stuff... just legitimate observations.

Anyway, I'm not initiating anything... but I will remove or alter any specific words or phrases any CFC mod or TF directs me to. The overall observation and assessment, however, is entirely correct, and not even my own opinion, since it is objectively demostrable.

:)

:cool:


PS, Again... no insult or flame is intended. ;)

EDIT: I went back and softened some stuff.

Star: The PI-Thing is no mod-thing. It IS in fact a demogame citizen thing ;-)
We even have a judical system for it.

I'm impressed. Someone with some huevos just joined the demogame. We don't get to see many people like that. If we do, they get run out quickly or quit...

I'm not saying that what you've posted is 100% accurate Starlifter, but there was a tendency for me to smile while I read your 2 posts. You seem to be someone who trusts their first impressions. I'm impressed.

Alright, I feel I must defend myself here.

For one thing, this thread is still open is it not? I posted my opinion, I did not carry it out, as I do not have a mandate to do so.

This topic WAS discussed extensively before, and this game should not revolve around inflammatory discussions regarding what mods should and should not be able to do. Therefore I suggested we close this discussion until it becomes a problem before this thread becomes the problem. I did not close this thread.

Starlifter, while I appreciate that your opinion is more objective than most, it is also based on a very small sample of posts, and lacks any realization of the history behind many of these conflicts and opinions.

The tight leash you speak of is not held by the moderators, but by the players who developed these laws.

Finally, Shaitan and I have caught quite a bit of hell since we became mods, which was only a short time ago. We have been consistently baited by members of the game. What their motivations are I do not know. How do you expect us to react to people questioning our honesty and capabilities? Believe me, my skin is quite thick. It takes repeated insults to get through it, and I have found my patience tested quite a few times in the past few days. It is not the mods that are creating this atmosphere, it is all of us.

And thank you, Thunderfall, for giving us the benefit of the doubt. I sincerely hope that once we have a game to play, most of these petty differences will be put aside.

It is very good to have you aboard, starlifter. No sarcasm there.

"I get the impression this Demo game is run with a tight fist, and there is little tolerance for dissenting opinion"

You will see very quickly that this is just about totally and completely 180 degrees off. We are blessed (or cursed?) with a load of very bright, oft-times opinionated players. :)

Originally posted by starlifter

That is one of the most astonishing things I would expect to see. Not very pleasant to Demo game participants in general.

Let's look at your logic:

1. I don't like a thread.
2. I'll close the thread, post, discussion, whaever I don't like.
3. There are "few" who disagree, now.
4. They'll never get enough to agree, since they can't post.
5. And maybe those that do disagree will just leave.



This section of your post is horribly inaccurate. Please make sure you have your facts straight before you begin accusing people of things.

It is unfortunate, but at this point, I do not sense this is really a game in the spirit of Democracy, and I have now started to realize it's because of the almost indistinguishable Mod/player role.

Again, please do not make judgements until you have spent some time here. While you say your post is not meant to inflame, you manage to accuse the moderators of being the cause of everything you believe to be wrong with this game.

And finally, if no insult was intended, why did you feel the need to make sure everyone knew you had softened things up.:rolleyes:

I'd like to request that everybody take a few steps back and breathe deeply.

We may not agree with starlifter's statements but he's giving us verbose feedback of what his initial impression of the game is. Right or wrong, that's the impression he's getting and could very well be shared by other new players.

Originally posted by Shaitan
I'd like to request that everybody take a few steps back and breathe deeply.

We may not agree with starlifter's statements but he's giving us verbose feedback of what his initial impression of the game is. Right or wrong, that's the impression he's getting and could very well be shared by other new players.

Or mainly, me.:lol: I am sorry, but I am rather irritated right now. I particularly dislike being accused of doing things that I did not do, and I dislike even more when further assumptions are made based on those false accusations. I appreciated starlifter's view as objective and useful until I was accused of being the cause of the discontent here.

When I joined Game 1 in the middle of Term 4, my first impression was of a fractious, divisive, complex, rash, and baiting populace. After lurking for a week and reading pretty close to every post made over three months of game time I realized I was wrong about a lot of things, but, in fact, dead on right about others.

For better or for worse, the demogame laws we have developed are complex. I also think they are fair and just and imperfect in all the right ways. But they are not easy for a newcomer to navigate, and they don't embrace newcomers who suddenly find everything refering to CoL, Section G and how that varies from actual practice in CoS, clause 4, paragraph 8 (from the donsig canon, not the king james version). Oof.

Starlifter, despite your first impression, the people involved here, and particularly the mods, are for the most part thoughtful, well-intentioned, articulate, and rarely rash. The rules are complex *because* people like Shaitan and Eyrei have spent hours debating to the nth degree how to best empower the citizenry and have, as much as possible, a game of laws, not opinions.

My .02 gp

Originally posted by Shaitan
I'd like to request that everybody take a few steps back and breathe deeply.

We may not agree with starlifter's statements but he's giving us verbose feedback of what his initial impression of the game is. Right or wrong, that's the impression he's getting and could very well be shared by other new players.

That's one of the things I've been trying to get at all along. :) When some one enters the game, what are they going to think? Plus, when they see a mod post (even if it's as a citizen opinion in a thread), there might be confusion, thinking the mod's words "reign supreme". In the next PNN issue that (yes, from the old game - I'll rename it FNN ;)) I'll ask the new players who just signed up (if they do) to post in a thread to get 'newbie input'.

@Eyrei: I don't think anyone said anything against you. Not even me. :) It's just Donsig and Shaitan going at it that I'm worried about. ;) (yes, I know they resovled their differences. :))

First, I'd like to say I may have inadvertantly stepped into a couple things that were not my intention.


By Me, earier in this thread:

Eyrei, you are misguided if you take offense. The thread concerns mods and not you in particular. Tomorrow, you might not be a mod, and someone else would be. Ditto for Shaitan. You all should have thicker skin and think about the concept and process, not how individual threads and posts affect or do not affect your view, and if you take offense or not. We do not come to CFC and play Demo game to please you.

I really have no idea about the lineage or longevity of the Mods, except for Duke of Marbrough (whom I know through Civ 2 stuff). Evidently, Shaitan and eyrei are new (from what was just posted), and my comments from earlier today were not meant to undermine or take away from their Mod & Admin power. I infer that there may have been some argument or sort of stuff in that vein in the past. But to me, a new guy, they are the mods (the mods) and what I was trying to say (just so it was not taken wrong by anyone) was that Mods can and do change, move, whatever... and leaders (in real life, or mods at CFC) are going to take crap at times, that goes with the extra duty. But the important thing is that the position of Mod (e.g, the Civ3 mods) is a rather detached and objective thing, and should be kept separate from personal agendas (we all have agendas... its human nature). That statement, and my posts, were not meant to fuel any past stuff that may have gone on. I don't know what happenened in the past, but all I see is a nice, new game starting up, so I don't have that baggage.

BTW, it is kindof weird to see a game starting, and an actual Public Trial of a fellow member. My thought would be that it is too early to put people on trial. Actaully, I object to putting members on trial or public humiliation, but I will assume there is something in the constitution that allows it and others much more learned than me know what is going on. But it must have been for something in the past, which is why it's weird to be in a brand new game and seeing a Poll to vote on "sentencing" a past President.


And finally, if no insult was intended, why did you feel the need to make sure everyone knew you had softened things up
Because I wrote 2 posts, and noticed that Thunderfall had made a post about my posts. So I went back and made some changes, out of respect for what TF had said. He did not tell me exactly what to change, so I went back and made re-read my posts, and took out sentences and words. I posted the edit so people could be aware that I was attempting to consider additional input. :)




Finally, Shaitan and I have caught quite a bit of hell since we became mods, which was only a short time ago. We have been consistently baited by members of the game. What their motivations are I do not know. How do you expect us to react to people questioning our honesty and capabilities? Believe me, my skin is quite thick. It takes repeated insults to get through it, and I have found my patience tested quite a few times in the past few days. It is not the mods that are creating this atmosphere, it is all of us.

Sorry, Eyrei, my post was not a result of whatever was going on before. I joined the game, and actually expected to read some threads, help decide moves & constructions (e.g, vote & post ideas), and that sort of thing.

At any rate, as I said before, I'm not aware of the backgrounds... it's just a new, blank game from my perspective as a new citizen. My input is that I personally don't mind mods being part of the game, and even holding office... I just don't want the mod thing to cross over into routine game play (or appear that way :) ).

If anyone is grinding an axe on the 2 mods, then my post is not to help sharpen the axe... it is simply to give my own perception as a 6-hour Civ 3 Demo citizen.

This section of your post is horribly inaccurate. Please make sure you have your facts straight before you begin accusing people of things.
Then I do sincerely apologize for any inaccuracies. It was taken from the paragraph you said earlier in this thread, like:
"Those few who disagree are going to have to learn to live with it until such a time as they can get the majority of the citizens to agree with their point of view."
followed by:
"to do this, you must post your opinion occasionally, but I expect that there be a concrete reason to do so. "
This would not be too negative if it was just from an average citizen, but from a Mod, it means that someone else (a Mod) will be the one judging whether or not a poster can even have enough reason to post. The thread is obviously to discuss the topic of the first post, and so you said:
"So, if there is not particular reason this thread was opened, I think it should be closed."

Well, honestly, if I had been the thread starter, I'd be pretty insulted. Whether you intended or not, you are implying that the topic should not be discussed. But if it cannot be discussed, then it is a catch-22... you should not be allowing the citizens to get to agree with a point of view that you mentioned two sentences before.


This topic WAS discussed extensively before, and this game should not revolve around inflammatory discussions regarding what mods should and should not be able to do. Therefore I suggested we close this discussion until it becomes a problem before this thread becomes the problem. I did not close this thread.

Well, it makes much more sense to me when you word it like that. However, I do happen do disagree with avoiding an issue like that, and think if it's just met head-on and resolved, then it's done and no worries.


Starlifter, while I appreciate that your opinion is more objective than most, it is also based on a very small sample of posts, and lacks any realization of the history behind many of these conflicts and opinions.

True, it is based on a small percentage of posts. But that is also a good thing... should new people need to dig back and learn about all that stuff? I came there today to join up and start looking at screenshots, reading what's up, making votes on strategy, basically playing the game, though I did not realize the game had not yet actually started.


The tight leash you speak of is not held by the moderators, but by the players who developed these laws.
The tight leash I was talking about is not the big set of rules, constitution, etc. It was the close monitoring and feedback on things that set the tone for people (average citizens) to follow. Like the example for this thread, when the very first post pretty much torpedoes the thread from the outset. I myself had a negative feeling when starting to read the thread, after seeing the first reply, and in essense, was in a mindset that the first post was probably unworkable. I had to reread it and think about what it really meant, and realized I agreed with the thread's author, not the unworkability brought up in the 1st reply.

Or mainly, me. I am sorry, but I am rather irritated right now. I particularly dislike being accused of doing things that I did not do, and I dislike even more when further assumptions are made based on those false accusations. I appreciated starlifter's view as objective and useful until I was accused of being the cause of the discontent here.
Well, I apologize for anything false or even misleading. I am not saying that you are the cause of discontent, or even that there is necessarily "discontent". But whatever the past was, I personally don't care and I do not carry forward any discontent. I just want to play (and for me, learn) the game in a good atmosphere. I don't want to go back and figure out past conflicts, or take sides "for" or "against" people.

Whatever went before, who cares. Its a new game, new people are coming in, and we don't know about all the "past". You guys are the mods, and that's the way it should remain. One thing that cannot be said is that either of you ignore the game, neglect it, or don't care! So that is a huge asset. :D

If you all are new mods, then people that have been around (the players) should probably cut you guys some slack, as there is a learning curve at your end, too. And you're both obviously dedicated and responsive, since you've already replied in this thread and not closed it or gone off the deep end ;) ;).



by Danke:
When I joined Game 1 in the middle of Term 4, my first impression was of a fractious, divisive, complex, rash, and baiting populace.
An interesting insight! Well, again, I don't know about back then, but if there is more that new people should know, then maybe just a special thread explaining that the above sort of stuff is expected and normal.


by Shaitan:
We may not agree with starlifter's statements but he's giving us verbose feedback of what his initial impression of the game is. Right or wrong, that's the impression he's getting and could very well be shared by other new players.
I will definitely say I'm not omniscient, and certainly not infallible... but whatever was in the past, is past: it's a new game. And new people will likely join in, and maybe some attention to perceptions by newcomers (and Civ 3 vets) will help. It's strange that my first vote was asked for on some sort of Investigation thing, but there did not seem to be much to make a "conviction" on.


"I get the impression this Demo game is run with a tight fist, and there is little tolerance for dissenting opinion"
You will see very quickly that this is just about totally and completely 180 degrees off. We are blessed (or cursed?) with a load of very bright, oft-times opinionated players.

That's good to hear. As Eyrei pointed out, my perception is not based on all the prior stuff in the 1st Civ 3 demo game, or even on the "history" of whatever. It's a limited perspective, and I'm the new guy.




The rules are complex *because* people like Shaitan and Eyrei have spent hours debating to the nth degree how to best empower the citizenry and have, as much as possible, a game of laws, not opinions.

I will say this: it took some people an awful lot of work to make a comprehensive set of documents like that. The general arrangement and organization seems very good, too. And Shaitan's post for new people is particularly helpful.


Anyway, just to summarize my own POV:

1. I don't in any way imply our 2 mods should be dissed or replaced (so no one take my posts that way!), and support the mods who, like most mods, sometimes do a job that probably attracts flak.
2. I don't mind having mods play the game & even hold office.
3. By virture of their position, I think mods have an extra burden to keep the line between mod-dom and player-dom separate (even if it's just perception). An office-holding mod would be 3 things: a citizen, official, and Mod... so perceptions would be important and should not be ignored (I'm not referring to my perceptions alone, I mean players in general).
4. I agree with Chieftess' opening post, and it is not a mod-specific thing. That is, it has nothing to do with anyone in particular; its applicable to anyone.
5. Separation in mind, I personally don't object to Mods even holding office & that sort of stuff (assuming it is jake with the big set of rules). But then
6. Followership is important too. That means that we, the people, are responsible for helping both the elected people, as well as the mods, do a good job. If "stuff happens", everything can't just dumped on them.


Well, it's been an interesting first day in the Civ 3 Democracy game!

:cool:

Starflifter, I hope you stick around. You're a keeper!

I think the *tight leash* appearance stems from the attemps to keep some threads clean and to keep the demo game forums organized. We learned in game one that we need some threads to be sort of official information type things. Otherwise it quickly becomes difficult to find out what is going on in our little country.

Just going to add my opinion: I agree with Starlifter, 100 percent. This trials and things are unbelieavably unfriendly and emit a bad aura, which is probably why I chose not to participate in this game. The mods should keep their personal ideas out of it, for they are posters too. They are to move threads, close threads, and stop people from flaming/spamming. They are NOT supposed to edit posts because they disagree with the person. And this trial of people, it is not right, nobody should be put on the spot and accused of doing something.

It's just a game, loosen up. Have some fun.

Originally posted by Ohwell
They are NOT supposed to edit posts because they disagree with the person.
This is 100% correct. It has never been done, will never be done and is not part of the current points of contention.
Originally posted by Ohwell
And this trial of people, it is not right, nobody should be put on the spot and accused of doing something.
Trials are used to allow a person the chance to defend themselves and be judged by the populous at large. The alternative is to have one or more persons responsible for deciding when people break the rules and administering appropriate punishment. That doesn't fit well with the democracy concept so we never even considered using it.