A Question To All....

[Methos]

Do we want to play this game? I ask, as I and others have noticed a gathering of individuals who appear to want to end our game. When someone, or a group of people, get together to sway, or force a vote against the desire of the participants of the game, it causes the participants to lose interest, as their involvement and participation are no longer a part of the game. When the interest of the legit participants is gone, the game dies. Therefore it is my belief that this group has every intention of sabatoging our game. I myself am, or was, enjoying this game, but I'm considering leaving it.

I've also been considering bringing this up in Staff and to TF, as the only future I see is a bad one. Before I do, I'd like to discuss it here first. For those of you who are part of the "mafia", is that your intent, to destroy the game, or do you have some other purpose? Do you wish to play, or just disrupt? For those of you who do wish to play, what do you think would be the best way to save this game, or do you believe everything is just fine? If you prefer to keep it private, feel free to PM me and I'll keep all details private.

 

[downtown]

I think I can speak for everybody when I say, I want to play this game. There is no fiftychat mafia. There are 3, just 3, posters who followed all protocol to register, and have voted sporadically. Their doing so in not a reflection on ruining the game, but rather a lack of time to commit to being super active.

If we want to establish an amendment to limit participation, or require a certain amount of partcipation in order to vote, fine. I'll look at it.

I think the whole fiftychat mafia business is just overblown. They have been involved in only 2 votes, one of which was a blowout anyways.

 

[LightFang]

There is no mafia. Holy cow. It's like calling the Economic Libertarian Alliance a mafia because they're all vaguely connected to each other to swing the vote one way or the other. Swinging the vote is the purpose of all parties, isn't it?

I'm with downtown on this one.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not going to go into all the details now, because I'm getting tired and I still have some documentation to write but I think the future can be okay and certainly shutting down now is unwarrented.

What I as a GM am going to do to drum interest back up is create a good fun social issue for you guys to chip away on (and I'll do that either thursday or friday) while I work behind the scenes to make sure we got GMs covering everything that needs to be done and see if I can't salvage some more factbook data from provo (he has sent me some).

After that I think we'll work on responding to current legislation and finding issues that will allow for new legislation.

 

[Methos]

There is no fiftychat mafia. There are 3, just 3, posters who followed all protocol to register, and have voted sporadically. Their doing so in not a reflection on ruining the game, but rather a lack of time to commit to being super active.

I think the whole fiftychat mafia business is just overblown.

There is no mafia. Holy cow. It's like calling the Economic Libertarian Alliance a mafia because they're all vaguely connected to each other to swing the vote one way or the other. Swinging the vote is the purpose of all parties, isn't it?

I'm with downtown on this one.

Really? Your forgetting I'm a moderator, which means I see a little more than most. BTW, notice the bolded statement?

<Bill3000> We really need to stop the entire "EVERYONE IN FIFTYCHAT VOTE ON THIS" thing.
<Gogf> why?
<Gogf> [6:24pm] Bill3000: ...because it's alienating people, it's cheating votes, and only causing bickering?
<azale> RED DOOR
<Gogf> well, I don't really see what's wrong with strong political organization
<azale> STOP BEING A . .. .. .. .. .
<azale> now, wheres lightfang?
<Gogf> if they don't want psedo-participants, they should write the constitution to have some sort of activity requirement
<Bill3000> because the members arn't actually participating, they only vote when we need them
<Gogf> I completely agree with reigning in Al, though
<Gogf> I realize
<azale> my activity has been near nil since i got elected, but when im needed ill be ready!
<azale> err, selected
<Bill3000> Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right and we should do it tongue
<Bill3000> Most importantly because it's causing sort of a pseudo-scandal right now.
<azale> i kinda agree with bill
<azale> its shady
<Gogf> why?
<Gogf> it's not shady
<azale> do we want downtown to be the nixon of parliament?
<Bill3000> Because I did the same thing in micronations, and it kills nations.
<Gogf> it's much less shady than saying "we know how to abuse the system but we're keeping quiet about it"
<Gogf> if it's a problem, let's fix the . .. .. .. .ing problem
<Gogf> just change the rules
<Bill3000> All it does is alienating people.
<Gogf> presto, problem solved
<Gogf> alienating who?
<azale> hmm
<Gogf> the only person I've seen complain is provo
<azale> who are the admins right now?
<azale> probably because the lobby isnt working for him now
<Bill3000> methos is complaining too
<Bill3000> so is gaius

So tell me, am I going overboard in my suspicions on fiftychatters throwing votes?

 

[Perfection]

Well, the Provo thing was really pissing a lot of #fiftychatters off, but other then that I don't think there was singificant voting problems in the bills/other things.

 

[LightFang]

The problem is though, not everybody in #fiftychat thinks it's a good thing. It's just some members of #fiftychat. You'll notice that they ask for my opinion, and I'm totally not there. So I missed the statement.

 

[Provolution]

Good work Methos. So Busted. I think we can leave this to Fiftychat to figure out, and I think they deserve their own game.

 

[downtown]

Its hard to miss you Provo when you won't leave. Don't forget, YOU WERE PART OF BOTH THE CSP, FIFTYCHAT, AND YOU SUPPORTED THIS WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR PM.

And that conversation notwithstanding, I would STILL deny this this "mafia". because the results just dont support it. If I had a mafia at my disposal, do you think that the bill that I suggested would have been so close? That I would have lost the pot bill? No.

This is a "scandal", because these posters do not like Provo, and folks have gone in there to complain about provo, and this whole thing has just blown way out of proportion.

Look. If you, or if anybody, wants to amend the constitution, fine. Lets write up a proposal, and we'll fix the problem. But, as of right now, nothing illegal happened, and only one vote in the entire game was affected.

 

[Provolution]

Really, I wrote Constitutional Amendment 1a) and 1b), you and in particular Red Door and Lightfang tried to stop to make sure your peripheral fiftychatters had steady access. I gave up on further amendments, as your dear agent of dirtywork, Red Door, wanted the registration of new MPs to be a swing door solution. I simply gave up on making 1 C) and 1 D) due to his and a couple of others personal attacks.

Amendments 1a) and 1b) was a direct byproduct of this. If the original proposal 1B), before watered out with 1A), went through, less last minute swing votes would have taken place, as everyone would have had to be members of a city. I also argued against this method in the internal forum, and tried to fix it with the amendments, but was shot down by Red Door in particular. Methos has access to the same threads, and I argued against it like he did, stating that the coalitions would have done the job, and none of us supported the so-called "Fiftychat Revolution". As Methos said, it is only about losing votes and close votes. We can read the chat Methos monitored right here, it gives most of the answers we need. Other non-Fiftychat CSP members can also attest to this, as they read the same threads.

Well, these posters don't like me fine, problem is that these posters do not represent the entire game. Some of these only showed up for these two votes, and there seems to be a strong connection between Perfection, Red Door and you, and that this group shares the same view on how to do things, even the grossly dirty and unfair methods. You even said you did not like Red Doors "help" on the matter, but you sort of approved it. Actually, I see it as an honor that I am disliked/hated at Fiftychat, now that I see what it is all about.

Then again, Fiftychats vision of the game is abstract time, high tolerance of flaming and dirty methods and so on. You also want a non-productive GM to run the show, and spites those that did the job. I did not ask for credit making the Factbook, but was contested for every little game-detail added in, and I could do nothing as the GMs were either lethargic or ignorant. You guys wanted less realism and less detail, well, with Perfection you get the tabloid shopping mall version of Civilitas.

You do not get it, do you. Nothing illegal happened since you guys sabotaged the attempts to fix the problem with sporadic voters, legally. Now that the scandal is out, it is quite late to fix it, our President Nixon of Civilitas as Azale put it.

Maybe I was the hated one, but the hate was also directed on what the other non-chatter segment of the game wanted. I think the best outcome to all this, is to have Perfection run a game, and if someone does not like it, they can all leave, but do not pin the blame to us that tried to fix it. Rather put the blame where it belongs to Perfection, that did not post here for a very long time, then destroys the initiative to save the game last minute.
You may hate me, but some people are not blind.

For historical reasons:

From the Constitutional Amendment 1B) VOTE (originally 1A)

I vote No
There have been reports of administrative backlogs with registering people in the city group. Until those have all been resolved, people should be allowed to vote after they join the user group.

Once those problems are addressed, then this would be fine. I don't want to scare away any new players

From the Constitutional Amendment 1B) VOTE (originally 1A)

I vote no, seeing as the bureaucracy in allowing people into cities is quite behind.

From the Constitutional Amendment 1B) VOTE (originally 1A)

I'd like to see one of our GMs comment on this matter. They have been pretty silent on almost everything we do here. I'd rather some of this nitty gritty stuff be taken up by then, so we can focus on legislating.

From the CSP Party threads on the Fiftychat Revolution

DOWNTOWN - ELECTION NIGHT

I think we got this in the bag there. There was a civil war in the Socialist camp, and we also started a fiftychat revolution.

Enjoy the win guys. We'll talk cabinet and our budget this weekend

CSP FTW

PROVOLUTION - ELECTION NIGHT

Well, we are now passing an amendment requiring registering for the city registry, (and yes, you can still do it Methos), but there will be no new registries for the next month.

We had a regionalization scheme people voted on, but somehow, constituencies were forgotten by those who drafted the laws. The Amendment will put an end to it.

METHOS

I noticed. A bit underhanded IMO. To be honest from the way it currently looks, you didn't need their help.

DOWNTOWN

I know it looks a little fishy right now. I wasn't really in charge of most of what happened, and I do expect these people do be a part of the game (at least by voting on important bills), or I'll have them removed. I had no idea that the debate thread would cause mass defections.

I'm really not a sleezeball, I swear

RICHARD NIXON, November 17, 1973

I am not a crook

AZALE, FIFTYCHAT, 11 September 2007

do we want downtown to be the nixon of parliament?

We all know what happened now.

 

[Methos]

Come on guys, let's not turn this into an arguement. My intention for posting the chat log was to point out that there is a problem. I did not mean for it to be in attack. The problem does exist, so what can we do about it to get it to go away? I want to play a game with like-minded individuals without having to worry about non-participants throwing the vote. All I want to do is just play a game.

 

[Perfection]

Methos, if you assume this is a large problem, and people disagree that's the natural basis for an argument.

 

[Methos]

Methos, if you assume this is a large problem, and people disagree that's the natural basis for an argument.

My statement was in regards to all parties, as I can't really see a polite way to read "Your busted" in any way.

 

[Gogf]

I think we all need to take a deep breath here. Some of us do not have as much time to participate in the game as Provo does. I read this forum only sporadically, but I am a registered member of the model parliament. If someone pastes a link to a vote that's simple enough for me to understand, I don't see why I shouldn't vote.

I think this paranoia about a "fiftychat mafia" is going completely overboard. Nobody is forcing anybody else to vote—let alone vote a certain way. Sure, downtown said "vote for me!" when he was running for prime minister, but clearly that's self advertising, not running a massive sworn-allegiance voting block. Sure, seeing Perfection rant about how bad scaled time is without seeing Provo's responses may not be perfectly conductive to educated voting, but I'm sure that people try to make as well thought-out a choice as possible.

If there is a problem here, it's not that people are posting links to votes in the fiftychat room. Provo could do the exact same thing as well, if he wished. If there is a problem, it is that inactive people are allowed to vote. If we decide that it's a problem, then let's fix it rather than complaining that people tell other MP'ers that a vote is happening.

 

[Methos]

If we decide that it's a problem, then let's fix it rather than complaining that people tell other MP'ers that a vote is happening.

Ignore those who are complaining and focus on fixing the problem, or what others see as a problem. I didn't create this thread for everyone to complain about it, but to fix it.

If there is a problem, it is that inactive people are allowed to vote.

This is something I want to here, a possible solution. Care to expand on it? How do you think we should regulate this in a way that doesn't hurt the game? My main concern is keeping the game fun for everyone, so putting restrictions on it need to do so in a way to keep it fun for the participants, rather than hurt them too.

 

[Gogf]

Ignore those who are complaining and focus on fixing the problem, or what others see as a problem. I didn't create this thread for everyone to complain about it, but to fix it.

Good. I like participating, even if I do it only limitedly, but I'll be willing to bow out if people consider that kind of participation a problem .

This is something I want to here, a possible solution. Care to expand on it? How do you think we should regulate this in a way that doesn't hurt the game? My main concern is keeping the game fun for everyone, so putting restrictions on it need to do so in a way to keep it fun for the participants, rather than hurt them too.

That's the problem. One idea is to require people to post a short position explanation along with their votes. In it, they would need to explain why they chose the option that they did. This would prevent people who don't understand the situation at all from voting. It could get tedious, though.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

You know, until I read the transcripts for myself I was beginning to wonder if this whole thing was a delusion of Equuleus. Now it looks like it's all out in the open. What I can't understand is why people wouldn't admit it. On the one hand, people deny its very existence, then come right out and say, "Yes, it's there, but it's not doing anything." Which is it? In other words, did you lie then, or are you lying now?

I think I can speak for everybody when I say, I want to play this game. There is no fiftychat mafia....

I think the whole fiftychat mafia business is just overblown. They have been involved in only 2 votes, one of which was a blowout anyways.

There is no mafia.

The problem is though, not everybody in #fiftychat thinks it's a good thing. It's just some members of #fiftychat. You'll notice that they ask for my opinion, and I'm totally not there. So I missed the statement.

Well, at any rate, I honestly don't care if there IS a mafia at work. Like I said, subterfuge could make things interesting, if done properly. The question now is whether this has any legal ramifications, which will be up to Methos and the SC to determine, or whether it violates any kind of forum rules. As for the game itself, I suppose each person will have to determine whether to stick with it or not. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens.

But, once again...

Please. there is no fiftychat mafia. Everybody signed up fair and square.

There is no fiftychat mafia, or party, I just showed you that.

There is no mafia.

Cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. There is no intoxication.

I don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Read my lips: no new taxes!

There is no mafia.

There is no mafia.

 

[Splime]

Well, it's obviously a problem. We just can't agree on how large the problem is.

 

[Red Door]

Methos, Provolution, and Gaius, I expected better of you. Bringing up strawmen of famous crooks and politicians saying things shows nothing to your arguments. All I see are people paranoid about legitimate voters playing a game. I could classify it as "Xenophobia", there is no mafia, was never a mafia, and never will be a mafia.

 

[LightFang]

Because equating a sixteen year old poster to a famous corrupt politician is a totally valid argument. Yes.

All this shows is that Provolution is doing exactly what we didn't want to happen - once disagreement happens, he starts trying to sabotage the game because it's not going his way. We said it would happen, and it did. The factbook was deleted and now this nonsense about a mafia crops up.