Turn Discussion

[Krill]

Quote in entirety:

I am still not sure that an Always Peace game is the only possible solution, but the logic seems unassailable to me... and I think that even if we play with war turned on next time, we need to have some strong solution to keep the game going once war starts... We are making a big mistake if we ignore the impact that War had on the way this game ended... It is hard to swallow the notion that a whole team just quit because of accusations or hurt feelings... Honestly, accusations and insults tend to fly pretty willy-nilly online in general... I mean someone in this forum just insulted/called me childish, or something like that a few days ago... Its just trash talk... you move on... right?

Now breaking it down:

I am still not sure that an Always Peace game is the only possible solution, but the logic seems unassailable to me...

It is one partial solution, but it doesn't solve the problems of team inactivity due to boredom etc. It has already been accepted that such a game is feasible.

and I think that even if we play with war turned on next time, we need to have some strong solution to keep the game going once war starts...

You will never be able to force people to play on. How are you even going to decide who "quit" anyway?

We are making a big mistake if we ignore the impact that War had on the way this game ended...

To rephrase that: "We are making a big mistake if we ignore the impact that lucky combat results had on the way this game ended..." What would have happened if Kaz had gotten lucky on the first assault on Zero? What would have happened if there had not been the second accusation of cheating?

It is hard to swallow the notion that a whole team just quit because of accusations or hurt feelings...

Please read the posts by SANCTA player, and do not misrepresent us. I left in early september because of RL issues. Memphus quit because Slaze made a second accusation of cheating (which is libel!) and Memphus had no recourse. AT wanted to quit because of those accusations. G_W was busy with a new business for most of the year. SANCTA did not have many active players, and the reason most of them left was because of two reasons, "Real Life" or the accusation of cheating. The fact that a war was being fought that SANCTA was going to lose had nothing to do with it. You'll see in the private forum that the team ceased functioning a long time before the war started.

Honestly, accusations and insults tend to fly pretty willy-nilly online in general... I mean someone in this forum just insulted/called me childish, or something like that a few days ago... Its just trash talk... you move on... right?

Calling someone a cheater online happens all the time is common, but it should not be tolerated, especially on a forum where you are slandering someones reputation for years to come. If I were to call someone a scumbag, or flame them I would get banned by the admins, calling someone a cheater is exactly the same thing on the surface, but is even worse when it is considered as charactor assassination. I'll repeat again, IT SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. Alot of insults can be shrugged off, but not that one.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Basicly, there is no way to punish people who leave / quit.

That means the only option to keep players in the game, is to make it interesting / enjoyable for people to keep playing. How to do so, differs from person to person. For me, I like winning )), a fast game and learning.

Maybe it's an idear when a game is created, one experienced player joins per team, and starts discussing why people join, what kind of game interests them, etc.

BTW, I'm a MS members who stopt playing long time ago.

 

[damnrunner]

Memphus quit because Slaze made a second accusation of cheating (which is libel!) and Memphus had no recourse.

You Brits have a pretty broad definition of libel. Most of us Kazakh folks are American where free speech laws pretty much allow for anything.

 

[Krill]

You're allowed to insinuate and defame a persons good standing in their community? Even in the US, that counts as "An allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude", which is a Per Se defamation ion most US jurisdictions.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

 

[slaze]

I didn't directly accuse anybody of anything. I was probing possible mechanisms and indeed, something was not yet part of the conversation.

To me, Memphus seemed like an exhausted guy: I can only speculate (so far) as to the efforts he put into his own forum but from my perspective, on my first post-verdict inquisition (with words flared by my own emotion) he gets up and goes. It was as if he was already gone and that I was only his "out". And although he leaves it clearly stated, I still ponder the reasons why. -inflamitory but my take, which needs some forums opened, is that in-game position was the largest contributing factor.

Anyway, for another one it appears that new random seed on reload and frowned upon sudden crashes will keep this issue from ever coming up again.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What would have happpened if there had not been the second accusation of cheating?

First of all, I totally reject this notion that there was ever any "Second Allegation." There was no second allegation as far as I can tell. If you are referencing the slaze quote that you posted... I am sorry but I fail to see where he accused SANCTA of cheating. You really need to establish that this "second allegation" actuallly occured before referring to it as historical fact.

Second, there were other conversations about manipulation and impropriety earlier in the game and we were able to deal with the issue and continue the game. The main thing that was different about this last dispute (as far as I can tell) was that SANCTA was losing a war, WHILE the dispute was going on.

You will never be able to force people to play on. How are you even going to decide who "quit" anyway?

"Deciding" who "quit" is irrelevant... "Forcing" people to play is also irrelevant... I am talking about structuring the game in a way that people DONT WANT to stop participating. Once people have dropped out, WHY they dropped out matters very little, in terms of the game you are currently playing. All we can do is use that info to make the NEW game in a way so that LESS people will lose interest.

To rephrase that...lucky combat results... assault on Zero?

Exactly my point... "combat", "assault"... War, War, War. That is what ended the game... All kinds of disputes related to the war. That is where we need to focus our attention in structuring the new game... making sure that a War does not cause a chain reaction that collapses the game.

It is one partial solution, but it doesn't solve the problems of team inactivity due to boredom etc. It has already been accepted that such a game is feasible.

I'm glad we agree that it is feasible, however what I am trying to figure out is whether we actually should play a peace game or not.

Calling someone a cheater online happens all the time is common, but it should not be tolerated... Alot of insults can be shrugged off, but not that one.

Are you serious? What about the racial, sexist, and other insults that happen online all the time? This is a VIDEOGAME for crying out loud. People always get accused of unfairness in games... period. Outrage over that seems a little melodramatic... don't you agree? I mean, as you say, you did not leave over the "allegations", you left over "RL issues" so don't you think that the allegations are par-for-the-course in any game? Haven't folks ever played Monopoly or UNO or Hearts (or any card game) with family?!? Somebody ALWAYS gets accused of cheating or stealing money out of the bank or improper collaboration, or talking across the board etc... You have a little argument and then go on with the game... (or somebody flips the board over) arguments are part of the game and part of the fun... That is how you can tell that people really care about the game.

And about the "libel" stuff... You can only commit libel against a person, organization or company. Online user-ids like "Krill" or "Sommerswerd" do not qualify as a 'person' for the purposes of a libel claim because there is no way to guarantee that a user ID is only one person, or even who that person actually is. An obscure legal nuance, of course... but important since "libel" is a very specific legal claim.

 

[donsig]

I really hope opening the teams forums will not pour more fuel on this fire.

I didn't propose an all-peace game as the only solution. I just think it's a good option for the next MTDG. We might also want to think a bit differently about how we go about forming teams. It might we worthwhile to have team captains who can post a sort of team philosophy. This would give us all an idea of what we'd be getting into before joining. (For instance we'd know if the team would have mandatory polls or not.)

 

[Tinkerbell]

I really hope opening the teams forums will not pour more fuel on this fire.

Good point

It might we worthwhile to have team captains who can post a sort of team philosophy. This would give us all an idea of what we'd be getting into before joining. (For instance we'd know if the team would have mandatory polls or not.)

Good point too!

 

[Sommerswerd]

I really hope opening the teams forums will not pour more fuel on this fire.

Well... I'm pretty sure that the sealed forums are going to be like sealed rooms full of cooking gas... Opening the forums will probably be like opening the doors and letting the fire spead into a gas-rich environment. That seems almost inevitable.

I didn't propose an all-peace game as the only solution. I just think it's a good option for the next MTDG.

Agreed... on all counts.

team captains who can post a sort of team philosophy.

This is an excellent idea... For example, if I were a team captain, I would always want to poll certain things as a matter of team policy. People who would be averse to this system could say "Well that sucks... I won't join Sommers team" ... (Or folks could not join Sommers team because they just think Sommers is a pain in general )

 

[Krill]

This is going to be a long post, and probably go very off topic, but whatever...

Second, there were other conversations about manipulation and impropriety earlier in the game and we were able to deal with the issue and continue the game. The main thing that was different about this last dispute (as far as I can tell) was that SANCTA was losing a war, WHILE the dispute was going on.

You talking about tech hiding? That'd be because it was never illegal, so calling it impropriety belies your biases.

"Deciding" who "quit" is irrelevant... "Forcing" people to play is also irrelevant... I am talking about structuring the game in a way that people DONT WANT to stop participating. Once people have dropped out, WHY they dropped out matters very little, in terms of the game you are currently playing. All we can do is use that info to make the NEW game in a way so that LESS people will lose interest.

You paraphrased what I said previously...

I'm glad we agree that it is feasible, however what I am trying to figure out is whether we actually should play a peace game or not.

Best not figure that out until all of the teams are assembled and the teams can decide what they want to play. That's the easiest way of attracting attention and players to the game.

Are you serious? What about the racial, sexist, and other insults that happen online all the time? This is a VIDEOGAME for crying out loud. People always get accused of unfairness in games... period. Outrage over that seems a little melodramatic... don't you agree?

Calling someone a cheater online happens all the time is common, but it should not be tolerated... Alot of insults can be shrugged off, but not that one.

Unfairness: disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting, which an example of which could be the tech hiding? I don't think anyone quit after that, so that doesn;t really hold water.

Cheating: to violate rules or regulations.

Is there a difference between following the rules exactly to the letter, and not following the rules?

MP games in CIV rely on trust. If someone is deemed by a community to untrustworthy they are normally banished from playing MP. There is an example of a player on Apolyton who cheated by having a double login on another demogame team, and he was banned from all future demogames. Cheating is something that is taken very seriously.

I mean, as you say, you did not leave over the "allegations", you left over "RL issues" so don't you think that the allegations are par-for-the-course in any game? Haven't folks ever played Monopoly or UNO or Hearts (or any card game) with family?!? Somebody ALWAYS gets accused of cheating or stealing money out of the bank or improper collaboration, or talking across the board etc... You have a little argument and then go on with the game... (or somebody flips the board over) arguments are part of the game and part of the fun... That is how you can tell that people really care about the game.

Not comparable. Consdier the time frame for one.

And about the "libel" stuff... You can only commit libel against a person, organization or company. Online user-ids like "Krill" or "Sommerswerd" do not qualify as a 'person' for the purposes of a libel claim because there is no way to guarantee that a user ID is only one person, or even who that person actually is. An obscure legal nuance, of course... but important since "libel" is a very specific legal claim.

Cite? I'm interested in this stuff, and I know US law is different to UK law. I'm pretty sure the point you make isn't valid under UK law. Check this out if you are interested.

I really hope opening the teams forums will not pour more fuel on this fire.

I think everyone can say straight up that they'll take everything said in the private forums with a pinch of salt?

I didn't propose an all-peace game as the only solution. I just think it's a good option for the next MTDG. We might also want to think a bit differently about how we go about forming teams. It might we worthwhile to have team captains who can post a sort of team philosophy. This would give us all an idea of what we'd be getting into before joining. (For instance we'd know if the team would have mandatory polls or not.)

It's been done before (Poly used this method from the very start). It didn't work 100% over there though, what happened was that players started to stick to groups from old demogames, never splitting up. Ultimately some teams just shrivelled to a few players, had few new joiners and made alliances along the same lines of previous games. It's not much different to forming teams as was done here.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I think the libel/slander stuff is a bit irrelevant. I don't think it can possibly apply to a screen name - that's not really the important thing. And I don't think that libel applies when the person believes the statement is true.

I had not been very active in the forums for several months when the cheating stuff came up. I was pretty incensed that it came up again after a resolution had been found. My thoughts were that there was no way to save Memphus' rep at this point and my thoughts were not to be part of the game anymore - in support of Memphus or protest or whatever you want to call it.

I really had very little understanding of the actual strategic or tactical situation at that point.

 

[azzaman333]

I think the libel/slander stuff is a bit irrelevant. I don't think it can possibly apply to a screen name - that's not really the important thing. And I don't think that libel applies when the person believes the statement is true.

I had not been very active in the forums for several months when the cheating stuff came up. I was pretty incensed that it came up again after a resolution had been found. My thoughts were that there was no way to save Memphus' rep at this point and my thoughts were not to be part of the game anymore - in support of Memphus or protest or whatever you want to call it.

I really had very little understanding of the actual strategic or tactical situation at that point.

Same sort of deal with me.

 

[damnrunner]

You're allowed to insinuate and defame a persons good standing in their community? Even in the US, that counts as "An allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude", which is a Per Se defamation ion most US jurisdictions.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

I was mostly poking fun - but my understanding is that in libel/defamation cases burden of proof in the USA is generally on the aggrieved party to "prove" the allegation is false and that they suffered some form of loss from the accusation. Whereas my understanding is that in the UK this burden of proof is generally reversed and the party accused of committing libel/defamation must prove they made true statements and did not

Anyhow, this makes for a much larger incentive to levy allegations of libel/defamation in the UK as leveling these chargers has not cost. Whereas in the USA, it is much harder to gain anything (and is often counterproductive) from accusing someone of libel defamation.

That said, I am no lawyer.

This forum is looking like one of Kazakhstan's never ending internal flame wars. So here is a question, do pointless arguments bedats such as this increase or decrease participation?

 

[Tinkerbell]

So here is a question, do pointless arguments bedats such as this increase or decrease participation?

This question is retorical, right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You talking about tech hiding? calling it impropriety belies your biases.

Yes I was talking about tech hiding... and negating Random events... and other issues... The point is that we were able to deal with it and move on without everyone quitting, when there was no War (that SANCTA was losing) going on.

When I said "impropriety", I was talking about what other people thought as opposed to what I thought... When you say I am biased... If by "biases", you mean that I am saying tech hiding is bad-form, then you are dead wrong and I hope you can admit that after reading the spoiler:

Spoiler :

Frankly, I don't see any probem with the SANCTA tech-hiding method... Are we saying that teams can't change their mind between turns, or from turn-to-turn, about what they intend to tech?

I don't think we need any rule at all TBH... Everyone can just start using the SANCTA tech hiding method.

yes let's all do that...no rule.

As you can plainly see, I was very supportive of tech-hiding, as I did not think it violated any rules... And Memphus agreed with me. The record does not lie...So I hope you can see it was off-base to call me biased against "tech-hiding"

Spoiler :

Unfairness: disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting, which an example of which could be the tech hiding? I don't think anyone quit after that, so that doesn;t really hold water. Cheating: to violate rules or regulations.
Is there a difference between following the rules exactly to the letter, and not following the rules?

I have no idea what any of that means, or what you are trying to say

Spoiler :

MP games in CIV rely on trust. If someone is deemed by a community to untrustworthy they are normally banished from playing MP. There is an example of a player on Apolyton who cheated by having a double login on another demogame team, and he was banned from all future demogames. Cheating is something that is taken very seriously.

Maybe... but no one was "banned" or "banished" here, and no one was accused of having a "double login" so I don't see the relevance, or justification for outrage. Accusations are just part of the game IMO.

Cite? I'm interested in this stuff, and I know US law is different to UK law. I'm pretty sure the point you make isn't valid under UK law. Check this out if you are interested.

I checked out the site... First of all, this site is an essay that some teacher wrote, and thus an opinion, not an authoritative (parlimentary or judicial) statement on UK law. Second, I am already familiar with the main case cited in the essay, Rindos v. Hardwick, and that case involved an email, not a blog, where the Plaintiff, Dr. Rindos, was named specifically. That is totally different from user-ids like "Krill" or "Sommers". User-ids are NOT PERSONS for libel purposes. Nothing in the article you cite refutes that... either under US or UK law.

Spoiler :

in support of Memphus or protest or whatever you want to call it.

Same sort of deal with me.

So to re-cap... War starts, combat ensues, people don't like combat results, allegations are made, Memphus quits, Auto and azzaman quit in solidarity. If War had never started, there would have been no combat results to make allegations about... That is what we need to address in the new game. Minimizing out-of-game collapse that results from in-game Wars.

 

[damnrunner]

This question is retorical, right?

or is it?

 

[DMOC]

When will the forums be open?

 

[ainwood]

When will the forums be open?

In a few minutes.....

 

[Krill]

Thanks Ainwood.

Atleast SANCTA won the spam war

 

[azzaman333]

I'd be very interested to hear Sullla's thoughts on the map and how it played out.