General rules for All IOT Games

CivOasis

Ahuizotl
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
3,005
Location
Sawaiki
THE RATIONALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler :
Hey, guys, I have a novel idea:
Why don't we actually work with the moderator?

Basically, I shall lay out my perspective on the current situation within IOT:

I was gone all weekend, so I have no idea what happened. All I know is that a discussion about the quality of IOT and level of power mods should have suddenly turned into a purging of posts, and me getting yelled at on chat by people who want to separate from CFC, along with a whole host of other issues that I don't feel the need to use to make my point.

So, I see a few extreme perspectives on "what to do" at the moment.

On one hand, there are those who wish to leave CFC. While this is, technically, possible, those of you who observe this action must realise that not everyone will follow, decreasing player base. Assuming you manage to draw in new players from elsewhere, the culture and varieties of IOT will change dramatically. Honestly, if you see IOT as "dying" or "losing quality/community/values", all that this course of action will result in is an acceleration of the above.

On another, there are those who wish to sit here and fight with the mods. In case you didn't realise, BirdJaguar doesn't actually play IOTs, and, as a result, could probably care less about closing them. Frankly, there isn't a single CFC mod who plays, and, since IOT is hardly essential to this site, they would not lose anything to shut it down entirely, nor would they be beyond their rights.

Lastly, I see those who wish to leave IOT entirely. Well... good for you? I mean, I guess you're doing what you want, but you aren't accomplishing anything, besides looking incredibly over-the-top to the community and mods.

Now, as I stated above, CFC and BirdJag could probably care less about whether IOT dies/gets banned/whatever, so the fact that they are even willing to discuss anything here is a good sign. Rather than biting the hand that feeds (And let us, for sake of the discussion's quality, not argue the validity of that phrasing), I think it would be prudent for us to cooperate and codify a list of expected etiquette and GM powers for IOT, as well as a chain of command to follow in the event greater action needs to be taken. Think of it as a constitution of IOT.

While I personally hope that BirdJag and the community will be open to this proposal, and be able to discuss it calmly in this thread, I propose an alternate route if that is not possible:

In a secret SG, community-elected representatives would meet with BirdJag and any other pertinent CFC staff, to draft this "constitution", which would then need to be approved by the community. Secrecy would be essential - you would know the representatives, so that you could bring ideas to them, but you would not be allowed to know what had been discussed and approved, so as to avoid and reduce the arguments seen so far - and the penalty for a committee member violating this rule would be expulsion from the committee. Again, I hope that second part is not necessary, but at least it would be effective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROPOSAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler :
Draft Rules regarding GMs and IOT mod [BIRDJAGUAR]:

IOT Meta Rules:
1. The GM cannot keep a member from joining a game unless the OP has a clear statement that the game will have a limit to the number of players and the request to join will put the player count over that stated limit.
2. A GM cannot remove a player from a game without first consulting the IOT mod, or if he is not around, another moderator or administrator.
3. The GM cannot encourage players to “dog pile” a player in order to force him out of the game.
4. The GM can set and enforce specific standards regarding nations and IC play, but those standards should be fully explained in the games rules section where everyone can read them. All players must held to the same standards
5. The IOT moderator will not interfere with game play except to enforce the forum rules. If in enforcing those rules, the moderator feels it is important to edit the game related content of a player’s post, he will first consult the GM.
6. Upon request from a GM, the IOT mod will be available to “encourage” problem players to change their habits and to hear all arguments from a GM that request a players removal from a game.

Draft Rules regarding players [CIVOASIS]:

Etiquette Rules:
1. Upon joining a game, a player agrees to abide by all rules of the game, both mechanical and in terms of etiquette.
2. OOC interactions between players are forbidden in-thread.
3. All CFC general forum rules must be observed.
4. OOC interactions between players that occur may not reference another player.
4A. Exceptions to the above occur when a player percieves another player or the GM to be in opposition to the rules of the IOT forum or of the game, and only occurs with the CFC moderators.
5. Any percieved rule violations must first be reported to the GM, and no further action is permitted until the GM responds. If there is no GM response, refer to Etiquette Rules 4 and 4A. [SONEREAL AMENDMENT]

Draft Rules regarding forum management [BESTRFCPLAYER]:

Management Rules:
1. One poster, elected by the subforum and approved by the CFC staff, shall serve rotating terms as a subforum moderator.
 
A constitution could work.
 
Draft Rules regarding GMs and IOT mod:

IOT Meta Rules:
1. The GM cannot keep a member from joining a game unless the OP has a clear statement that the game will have a limit to the number of players and the request to join will put the player count over that stated limit.
2. A GM cannot remove a player from a game without first consulting the IOT mod, or if he is not around, another moderator or administrator.
3. The GM cannot encourage players to “dog pile” a player in order to force him out of the game.
4. The GM can set and enforce specific standards regarding nations and IC play, but those standards should be fully explained in the games rules section where everyone can read them. All players must held to the same standards
5. The IOT moderator will not interfere with game play except to enforce the forum rules. If in enforcing those rules, the moderator feels it is important to edit the game related content of a player’s post, he will first consult the GM.
6. Upon request from a GM, the IOT mod will be available to “encourage” problem players to change their habits and to hear all arguments from a GM that request a players removal from a game.

Comments and suggestions welcome. When finalized I will post these in their own thread.
 
@Civ O: Sounds better than anything we have.
 
I missed a bunch of posts while writing the above, so some other process is perfectly fine with me.
 
The draft seems fairly reasonable to me. :)
 
This draft is really good! One thing I would like to add: have a community-elected mod for IOT (one or two) to serve along with Bird.
 
I think it's pretty safe to say that won't happen. :p

Though this draft is fair enough. I've edited MP3's opening post to say that IC justifications are necessary for embargoes and such. I'm pretty lenient, so it's not too hard to satisfy me in that regard.
 
This draft is really good! One thing I would like to add: have a community-elected mod for IOT (one or two) to serve along with Bird.
While not a bad idea, it is one that would have to be vetted by the admins and moderating staff. Being an official mod provides access to areas of the forums not available to regular members. That access is not granted lightly. I'm not sure that there is any in between status that would be meaningful or useful. If we get through this current problem, I will raise your question in staff.
 
I think this draft is pretty darn spot on. I think a good thing that would help is maybe have a veteran IOTer who knows the game well to mod so they can have some input on mod decisions.
 
It's a step in the right direction to say the least.

We also need to discuss something about decisions of the player. For example, what happened in MP3. A player's actions should not be changed by the mod, especially if the GM gave approval for the action. Or is this what #5 was written for?
 
Spoiler :
Draft Rules regarding GMs and IOT mod [BIRDJAGUAR]:

IOT Meta Rules:
1. The GM cannot keep a member from joining a game unless the OP has a clear statement that the game will have a limit to the number of players and the request to join will put the player count over that stated limit.
2. A GM cannot remove a player from a game without first consulting the IOT mod, or if he is not around, another moderator or administrator.
3. The GM cannot encourage players to “dog pile” a player in order to force him out of the game.
4. The GM can set and enforce specific standards regarding nations and IC play, but those standards should be fully explained in the games rules section where everyone can read them. All players must held to the same standards
5. The IOT moderator will not interfere with game play except to enforce the forum rules. If in enforcing those rules, the moderator feels it is important to edit the game related content of a player’s post, he will first consult the GM.
6. Upon request from a GM, the IOT mod will be available to “encourage” problem players to change their habits and to hear all arguments from a GM that request a players removal from a game.


Sounds good, but I think we need to create some player etiquette rules, as well. Here is my proposal for additions:

Spoiler :
Draft Rules regarding players [CIVOASIS]:

Etiquette Rules:
1. All questions regarding a game's rules must be asked and responded to prior to the start of the game, or at the time of joining.
2. Upon joining a game, a player agrees to abide by all rules of the game, both mechanical and in terms of etiquette.
3. OOC interactions between players are forbidden in-thread.
4. All CFC general forum rules must be observed.
5. OOC interactions between players that occur may not reference another player.
5A. Exceptions to the above occur when a player percieves another player or the GM to be in opposition to the rules of the IOT forum or of the game, and only occurs with the CFC moderators.


And, since it was mentioned, RFC's suggestion, even if it is above BirdJag's level.

Spoiler :
Draft Rules regarding forum management [BESTRFCPLAYER]:

Management Rules:
1. One poster, elected by the subforum and approved by the CFC staff, shall serve rotating terms as a subforum moderator.
 
Generally nice-looking proposal, but we could do without #1. People constantly have questions about the rules and mid-game rule changes are pretty much a constant on these games.
 
It's a step in the right direction to say the least.

We also need to discuss something about decisions of the player. For example, what happened in MP3. A player's actions should not be changed by the mod, especially if the GM gave approval for the action. Or is this what #5 was written for?
Yes, that was what #5 addresses.
 
Additionally: I propose that we shelve any discussion of how to determine the community-chosen mod until after we know if it will be approved, unless CFC staff requests otherwise.
 
Generally nice-looking proposal, but we could do without #1. People constantly have questions about the rules and mid-game rule changes are pretty much a constant on these games.

True - my major concern was avoiding a player who decides to question a rule several turns in, as a result of things going badly. I would say that it should probably be removed over being instituted in current form, but I was hoping to provoke amendments.
 
Hello. Good to see progress being made on uh... a constitution. Interesting.

Anyway, concerning the "No OOC in Game Thread" thing, perhaps you guys would be interested in a WWW thread like in the NESing thread for semi-related IOT discussions, as well as taking OOC discussions "outside" so to speak. :)

EDIT: Possible amendment to #1, and which I use in my NES. A rule may be question in its effectiveness/use ONLY if (insert arbitrary number/faction here) amount of players sign a petition (and offer their own reasons to sign it) about a certain rule/result. Major times where this came to effect in my nes: Cannibalism, extreme pyro-maniac actions, overpowering "Hordlings" in horde-state conflicts, and the unclear use of upkeep and logistics.
 
Back
Top Bottom