As we enter Demogame 5 and I have traveled to different Demogames observing the conduct each user has in the demogame. I have noticed in some that there are a lot of mudslinging that are more hurtfull to the other persion.

I am wondering what the citizens of the CFC Demogame feel about mudslinging.

I feel that mudslinging is an innapropreate action and should be eliminated or not used in any of the Demogames. Webster's Dictonary says Mudslinging is; "one that uses offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent". Mudslinging has lead other users say and use hurtfull things to other users. Mainly the hurtfull topics they use are usualy personal and usualy ties with the citizen's past. Mudslinging has and will lead to hurt feelings and would lead the citizen to leave. I would like to urge all citizens to have a heart and vote that mudslinging is innapropreate for the CFC Demogame

I made this as an informal poll and I have set the time limit to 3 days since I am planning to write up an unnoffical document that would be like the code of conduct.

Thank you for your time and remember Danke's immortal words "Demogame. Its a game and all that. Play nice."

One man's mudslinging is another's political debate. Let the mods determine the difference.

So, I vote Yes, "mudslinging" should be allowed to some extent. Have faith that the voters will not reward a negative campaign unless said charges have merit.

One man's mudslinging is another's political debate. Let the mods determine the difference.

So, I vote Yes, "mudslinging" should be allowed to some extent. Have faith that the voters will not reward a negative campaign unless said charges have merit.
Sadly no one can see all ends, nor can the mods be everywhere at once. A certain individual in the last 2 weeks has been slammed for the same exact mistake he made in a past DG countless times (Ive done it too) and the mods have done nothing. It is pretty obvious who this person is and as much as the mistake was massive, he does not deserve what I predict: He will never hold a significant position of power in the DG again because of it. It is becasue it is used against him at every turn, and new players then find out. For this player, he deserves another chance. The only way we can give him another chance, as well as remove a vast web of hatreds in the DG is to say that it is not right to make these ceaseless attacks on people for past mistakes or personal problems.

Perfectly appropriate, so long as the statements made are accurate and within the context of an election.

Any person wishing to run for an office brings past experiences with them, both good and bad. It is an appropriate persuasive technic to remind voters of the shortcomings of a candidate. It is then up to that candidate, and their supporters, to refute the claim, offer counter-evidence or state a way that will prevent or alleviate that short-coming.

Hey - this is an election we're talking about, not Woodstock. I demand quite a bit from the leaders I vote for. I don't play favorites, I don't vote soley for the sake of personal respect. I vote based on the strengths that person brings to the office and my estimation of their abilities and character. If someone has failed before - I want to know about it. If they have succeeded before - I want to know about it. The last thing I want to see is an organized effort to prevent past shortcomings from becoming public.

No, if it gets mean, that's a whole 'nother story, and should be dealt with by the mods, not by us. If mere mutual respect alone does not govern us, the LART from a mod is needed.

-- Ravensfire

i voted no, it shouldnt be allowed, of course mudslinging in context of the game of the game should be allowed. but i thought this poll meant mudslinging for the sake of not liking said person or no reasn what so ever.

I voted no because even though I will remind voters of a candidates past ways, this mudslinging crap reminds me of the useless political system we have here in the united states. These bozos will spend weeks talking about who wore white after Labor Day when they should be talking about issues that concern the People.

Political rhetoric is all pretty much a waste of time, but a yes vote here would condone the constant stream of bs over nothing relevant that the Demogames are known for.

Let the moderators worry about this.

As one who not only was part of the Anaphase Simcity 4 Region Game, but ran it, I would bet I know more about mudslinging and game politics than the rest of you all combined.

Which is why I say we discourage it the only way how: don't mention it. Worked fine in other games. Don't make rules against it, don't encourage it, don't start it. Just pretend its not there. :P

As one who not only was part of the Anaphase Simcity 4 Region Game, but ran it, I would bet I know more about mudslinging and game politics than the rest of you all combined.

I'm curious why does this give you more experience then those of us who have gone through 4 Demogames of heated political arguments?

Anyway I voted "No" but DZ is right, one man's mud slinging is another man's legitimate argument. Or more accurately people can take things a little too personally and thus see mud slinging where there is none.

Not to mention, by mentioning someone's past record (ie. they ran our military into ruin) and they have supporting evidence of

A.) Our gameplay or game success being severarly hurt
B.) that the person was the root cause of that

then they have a right to say so, if they just say they ran the country into the ground, with no valid backing evidence, that would not be mudslinging (as I see it) but simply a horrible falsification or lie.

Mudslinging as I see it, is bringing up personal "dirt" and directly insulting an individual, ie. Flaming, trolling, or whatever which is already not allowed by forum policy, and thus is the mod's job to identify and punish.

I'm curious why does this give you more experience then those of us who have gone through 4 Demogames of heated political arguments?

http://www.simcitycentral.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4014&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

There's 20 pages of it (thats 400 posts). And that's just one thread! We also had the main thread, the thread for Propaganda and Smeer Campaigns, and the Dept. of Transportation thread. You may know more about civil, rational discussions on the merits an appointed deputy system, but trust me, I know mudslinging. ;)

Mentioning someone's past records is fine. It is based off of that that the public should base their decision. The problem is when it turns into the crap in that thread. It would take a lot of effort to turn it into that (or just a long, bitter argument over an irrelevant topic and a propaganda-crazed partisan), and I think that it can be avoided easily. First of all, while negetive campaigning in the form of things that are fully true, relevant, and public record (like saying your opponant lost a war) is good. Negetive campaining outside of that is bad, and should be avoided at all costs. But beyond personal attacks I don't think the mods have any part to play in keeping it clean. I think that the best way to keep it clean is to ignore the problem until it occurs, which it very well might not. It seems to me this was never brought up before, nor has it ever occured. So long as it doesn't occur to anyone, it won't happen. So delete this thread immediately! :p

Let the moderators worry about this.
Unfortunately I have never seen the mods deal with it. I personally want the mods to act rather than debate on wether it is worthy or not.

Say I was an American citizen, and wondered who to vote for in the election this fall. Now if the pro-Kerry side told me that mr Bush invaded Iraq etc. I would then inquire as to what all that was about - hopefully make up an opinion of some sort, and perhaps use that opinion as basis for my vote.

I strongly believe that some issues are relevant and some are not (ok that was obvious). There is no future without a past - so what you do today affect how people view you tomorrow. Say mr Bush escaped military service in the past. That does not necessarily make him a horrible politician. But if he as a politician allowed some to escape serving, while others served - that would have been a relevant issue.

I ve studied journalism for a year. In Norway the press works after the rule that people that are "public persons" (celebrities, politicians...) have to accept more spotlight than the ordinary joe. Privacy must still be respected - but their actions in public places are generally less protected than those of a "normal" person. An example: A Norwegian lawyer drinks and drives, crashing into 3 cars. She is fined with 500k NOK for this offense. Newspapers print this why? Firstly, because ordinary joe would have lost his driver's license and probably ended up in jail. Secondly, because she is a lawyer with some amount of public exposure (note that she was not given away with full name in any newspaper article I have seen)

Now for "mudslinging". I reckon that term is subject to many slightly different definitions. Even with the dictionary definition - people interpret the term in different ways. One way to deal with that is to abide by forum rules and remember that your right to free speech is nonexistant - so letting our friendly moderators handle the case is the safest option

In my opinion, "mudslinging" implies more than just bringing up a person's past. Since the possibility of mudslinging is directly related to holding leadership in the democracy game (with CivGeneral emphasizing game in his post) - I think it is important do differentiate between what could be considered relevant and what could be considered irrelevant.

Let's say I was elected president for - 7 terms - and I did not do diddly squat in all those terms. Then, at the election for term 8 - some guy posted something like this:

"Come on people. Paalikles hasnt done anything for 7 terms. He is useless"

Where is the mudslinging part in my opinion: the phrase "he is useless". The rest would have been factual. Relevant indeed - since logic suggests that I wouldnt do much more in term 8 than I did in the first 7 terms. (of course this scenario suggests that you are all blind - and that we dont actually play any turns for 7 terms - but I think you see what I am getting at nevertheless)

But anyways - I would let our moderators handle these kinds of situations, since saying no to mudslinging does not necessarily remove it alltogether - due to the fact that I already pointed out - that we interpret words different from eachother

Edit: corrected a sentence to give more meaning

I could not vote, as the abstain option also held the phrase "I don't care" and there was no "other - please specify" option

http://www.simcitycentral.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4014&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

There's 20 pages of it (thats 400 posts). And that's just one thread! We also had the main thread, the thread for Propaganda and Smeer Campaigns, and the Dept. of Transportation thread. You may know more about civil, rational discussions on the merits an appointed deputy system, but trust me, I know mudslinging. ;)

I was just curious... yes, that thread seems to have alot more sever mudslinging then I've seen in the Demogame.

Alot of the DG discussions have gotten more personal then they should have, but never as sever as the thread you've shown me.

Im with sarevok, and donsig, this is the moderators job to prevent from getting out of hand, but I dont think a good enough job has been done thus far.

"Come on people. Paalikles hasnt done anything for 7 terms. He is useless"


Edit: corrected a sentence to give more meaning



Just kidding Paalikles, good post. ;)

As for the general opinion that mudslinging should be handled by the Mods, I'll quote a previous post of mine. "Well, duuh..."

Either way this vote goes, the Mods are going to have to police the situation by forum rules, depending on the severity of the mud that was slung. If this poll is about whether CCs or PIs could be used against mudslinging then the Mod issue would kinda make sense. But let's be real here, the Mods will be involved regardless, if needed.

But the Mods have enough to do without chasing after the childish citizens who do not have the wherewithall, the integrity, nor the content in their campaign to stick to the issues. Even if one Mod has approved mudslinging in this thread, he's still going to have to police the forum for mudslinging that "gets too bad". Of course mudslinging is inappropriate, but according to the voting in this poll, it's just as noteworthy as all the other crapola we read in these forums.

Im with sarevok, and donsig, this is the moderators job to prevent from getting out of hand, but I dont think a good enough job has been done thus far.
I would agree with you, I remembered I have reported a post that was a hurtfull mudsling that was directed at me and yet, no mods has ever bothered to censer the post nor warned the poster.

Even if one Mod has approved mudslinging in this thread, he's still going to have to police the forum for mudslinging that "gets too bad".

Actually, no posts in this thread have been made by a moderator. I turned in my stripes quite some time ago. ;)

And for the record, what CG claims is a "hurtful mudsling" was in reality a challenge to his Term 1 record. Besides, mods did come to CG's defense when matters became more personal(about his leaving and coming back).

I would always let things like the first example slide, as that is (unfortunately for some)the essence of politics. But we seem to be drifting away from a game where politics matter, and to that end we could probably sterilize the process to the point that no one has to be reminded of where improvement is needed. This way, we can all stare over each other's shoulder at the same glittering prize, as we take part in a glorified succession game. ;)

Actually, no posts in this thread have been made by a moderator. I turned in my stripes quite some time ago. ;)

Oooppss! Sorry, I forgot you turned your stripes in, DZ. Funny how jailtime seems to follow one around for a while. :lol:

I'm not defending CG here, nor am I blaming the Mods for not following up promptly. I would just like to see a DG where people play by the rules and don't let their mouth run endlessly about stuff that isn't relevant to the progression of the game. Politics doesn't have to be filled with sleazebags just because that's the way real life has made it.

Unfortunately I have never seen the mods deal with it. I personally want the mods to act rather than debate on wether it is worthy or not.
Im with sarevok, and donsig, this is the moderators job to prevent from getting out of hand, but I dont think a good enough job has been done thus far.
I would agree with you, I remembered I have reported a post that was a hurtfull mudsling that was directed at me and yet, no mods has ever bothered to censer the post nor warned the poster.
Guess what the "Report a post"-button is for? - If you want a mod to focus on a specific post, that is the way to draw attention to it.

My personal opinion: Fierce debates which include the past: Yes.
Mudslinging: No, these fall under the forum rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumRules.shtml).

For those of us, like me, who don't know, the report-a-post button is that little ! triangle next to the online/offline symbol in the bottom left corner of the left side of a post.

RM:Im glad you know what a report post button is, and Im not going to overstep my boundries by saying anything more.

I think it is pretty difficult for the citizens to police themselves on an issue such as this. Who gets to decide what is mudslinging and what is not?

Please don't say Chief Justice :lol:

I think sort of thing is exactly why the mods are here.

Guess what the "Report a post"-button is for? - If you want a mod to focus on a specific post, that is the way to draw attention to it.

My personal opinion: Fierce debates which include the past: Yes.
Mudslinging: No, these fall under the forum rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumRules.shtml).
I have probably used the report-a-post option about 25 times this year. It has been acted upon about 4 times. Every time was a serious insult, yet it was almost never acted upon.

I think it is pretty difficult for the citizens to police themselves on an issue such as this. Who gets to decide what is mudslinging and what is not?

Please don't say Chief Justice :lol:

I think sort of thing is exactly why the mods are here.
Chief Justice. Sorry, I could not resist Bill :p

I have probably used the report-a-post option about 25 times this year. It has been acted upon about 4 times. Every time was a serious insult, yet it was almost never acted upon.

Just because you consider something a serious insult doesn't mean it breaks the forum rules or even that it was intended as such. Plus, you have not used the report post option more than a few times in the demogame forums, so stop exaggerating.

I think that discussion of facts from the past (and present) is a perfectly legitimate political strategy. I do wish that there was a requirement to quote other people in context instead of extracting a couple of words from a sentence and using it out of context to mischaracterize that person's position, but can live with things how they are.

Just because you consider something a serious insult doesn't mean it breaks the forum rules or even that it was intended as such. Plus, you have not used the report post option more than a few times in the demogame forums, so stop exaggerating.
I wasnt talking exclusively about the DG forums... Also I only use the report If I am seriously offended by what someone has said. Once I was deeply offended by a comment made to me in the Custom Scenario forum, reported it, and absolutely nothing happened. What this person did was clearly against the rules, yet it was simply ignored. I do not go around and pick fights to report people, they come to me. Perhaps I should start being "care-free" when people throw things against me meant specifically to ruin all I have achieved and simply say "oh well, it happens?" I refuse to be anyone's puppet anymore, and I will not stand for any pathetic attempt to try to bring me down.

I think that discussion of facts from the past (and present) is a perfectly legitimate political strategy. I do wish that there was a requirement to quote other people in context instead of extracting a couple of words from a sentence and using it out of context to mischaracterize that person's position, but can live with things how they are.

I actually agree with you somewhat on this that it is something legitimate. But in this forum, it gets far too personal. I personally believe under the right circumstances a person can learn from their mistakes and do good. Some people however have made rather hefty mistakes or errors, but soon after learned from it. Nobody else however knows that here and will never give them a chance because of their mistake. Everything is based upon what happened in the past, not on if someone has learned from their mistake. To name 2 people, I think donsig and CivGeneral have learned from their mistakes of DG3T3 and DG4T1 respectively, but I doubt they will ever get into the positions they had again because people continuously bring up the past and do not give them another chance. So using the past as a weapon is a legitamite thing, but not in this forum.

I actually agree with you somewhat on this that it is something legitimate. But in this forum, it gets far too personal. I personally believe under the right circumstances a person can learn from their mistakes and do good. Some people however have made rather hefty mistakes or errors, but soon after learned from it. Nobody else however knows that here and will never give them a chance because of their mistake. Everything is based upon what happened in the past, not on if someone has learned from their mistake. To name 2 people, I think donsig and CivGeneral have learned from their mistakes of DG3T3 and DG4T1 respectively, but I doubt they will ever get into the positions they had again because people continuously bring up the past and do not give them another chance. So using the past as a weapon is a legitamite thing, but not in this forum.

There may indeed be some people who are not willing to give people who made mistakes in the past another chance, and that is rather unfortunate. I personally use a much different standard for deciding who I will support for current elections than just past facts. If someone has learned from a past mistake, that learning should translate to a change in their position on the issues. The first step is admitting wrongdoing, and next is showing real changes. Here are some examples:

Tao, if he were going to be continuing in DG5, would need to admit that trying to override other governors instructions directly instead of giving them input as a citizen (which they would be obliged to follow anyway) was the wrong way to approach the game.

I'm not sure what incident CG is referring to -- giving instructions which were too explicit? I noticed improvement even during DG4T1 with more generic instructions later in the term.

I'm perfectly willing to vote for donsig (depending of course on the other available choices) but he'd get a lot stronger support if he would just admit that continuing that one chat was a bad idea, even if the actions which followed were "trivial", because people would feel better if they get a chance to discuss something than if they don't get a chance to discuss it. Actually if he admitted that the chat itself is important to some people's enjoyment of the game, a lot of goodwill would be gained.

Between being the Military Advisor in the last several terms of DG4 and then being the next ranking person in the CoC for almost all of the chats, I got the feeling that DG4 turned out being the Chieftess game, and we were along for the ride. It also was quite annoying to see Rik get named as the new moderator, and have CT announce again that she was leaving because someone else got the mod nod. That thread got deleted :confused: and we have 3 mods now, but it makes me hesitate before I'll consider voting for her in any election. I would need to see a lot of evidence that she believes this is a team game before she'll get my support.

I think DS sort of sums up my thoughts on forgiving people. If a person made some mistakes earlier, that doesn't mean he'll make them later again. But OTOH that person has proven to be capable/willing to make those mistakes. Which makes me cautious to bring them back in that position, but not neccesarily for all positions.

I think DS sort of sums up my thoughts on forgiving people. If a person made some mistakes earlier, that doesn't mean he'll make them later again. But OTOH that person has proven to be capable/willing to make those mistakes. Which makes me cautious to bring them back in that position, but not neccesarily for all positions.

All very true, but a person that has proven to be capable/willing to make those mistakes is out there trying. And in my book, that beats the people who don't get out there and try. Just because you're penalized heavily for sticking you own head up yer butt (which is a trick in itself), doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved and try again.

All very true, but a person that has proven to be capable/willing to make those mistakes is out there trying. And in my book, that beats the people who don't get out there and try. Let me rephrase "Which makes me cautious to bring them back in that position, but not neccesarily for all positions."

I will vote for them for many positions. If that person desires a position he has made mistakes in in the past, I am more hesitant to vote for that person for that position. It doesn't mean I won't vote for them. Everybody deserves a 2nd or 3rd chance.

But in this forum, it gets far too personal. I personally believe under the right circumstances a person can learn from their mistakes and do good. Some people however have made rather hefty mistakes or errors, but soon after learned from it. Nobody else however knows that here and will never give them a chance because of their mistake. Everything is based upon what happened in the past, not on if someone has learned from their mistake. To name 2 people, I think donsig and CivGeneral have learned from their mistakes of DG3T3 and DG4T1 respectively, but I doubt they will ever get into the positions they had again because people continuously bring up the past and do not give them another chance. So using the past as a weapon is a legitamite thing, but not in this forum.

I would agree with you Sarevok, it was especaly hard for me to rebound back into the government after that CC was plastered on my head, though I only had a few lucky wins, but thats only in the govenor's possition. Its true that I have learned from my mistakes, Even my step-father sometimes reminds me that "We are all not machines, we are human". With the recent falures of my elections, I have been getting self-doubt about myself in DG5. I do have asperations for rebounding back into the ministries department, but with some people who are not as forgiving and will use the past against me is what is making me starting to get self-doubts about my carrier in the Demogame. I know this from past experiance in both this game and in real life situations (Mainly from dating in High School but thats another topic). As Sarevok said and I think in my head, I doubt they [that I] will ever get into the positions they had again because people continuously bring up the past and do not give them [me] another chance. I beleve that we, the demogame citizens should learn to forgive others and give others another chance at holding a possition as long as they learn from there mistakes.