Civ 3 demo game mods

[donsig]

Having the Civ 3 demo game forums moderated by those deeply involved in the game is not good for the game! The players in the Civ 3 demo game have evolved a sophisticated constitution, rule set and government in the attempt to divide up responsibility for the playing of the actual Civ 3 game. As in real world politics there are times when one of our players might over reach their allotted demo game authority. As in the real world this can lead to some tension in the demo game as issues, policies and actions (both comtemplated and completed) are debated. Sometimes the debates can be rather heated yet if the debate (or arguement if you prefer) is allowed to run its course things get worked out with no hard feelings and the game goes on. Squashing the debate only leaves issues unresolved and those issues will pop up again and again until resolved. This is especially so when one of the debaters is also a moderator who ends up trying to squelch the debate. In American football there are times when one player will take a cheap shot at another. Sometimes the player on the receiving end of the cheap shot will retaliate. If the referee sees the retaliation but not the original cheap shot he'll only penalize the retaliator, which serves to infuriate the the guy on the end of the original cheap shot even more. Now imagine the same type of situation but add this twist: the player doling out the original cheap shot is also a referee with the power to penalize the guy he's laying the cheap shot on! Not a fair game, not a fun game.
The demo game does not need moderators who will read every post with an eye towards using a blow torch to put out fires before they start. At the bottom of each post is a link to report the post to a moderator. All the demo game needs is a moderator who will respond to such calls when they are issued through that *report this post* link.

Unfortunately the multi-site demo game sub-forums have the same moderators as the Civ 3 demo game forums and the high handed modding is already at work there. The whole point of having a secure sub-forum in that game is so we can keep our team's information away from the other teams. We have written a clause into our constitution that all new members of the CFC team must be approved by existing members of the team. Now we have a mod saying there is no way we can tell is someone is joining our team simply to spy on us so we cannot have this in our rule set. In effect we have to let anyone who registers at CFC join our secure forum if they want to. Is it just me or does this not make sense? Our team needs to know under what circumstances (if any) we are allowed to not accept a new member onto our team. If screening new members is not allowed then can we freeze team membership now (i.e., not have any new team members at all)?

Proposed MSDG team constitution.

I would appreciate it if the powers that be would commenton this situation.

 

[eyrei]

No, donsig, the Civ3 demogame needs moderators just like the rest of the forums. Flame wars erupt on a regular basis, threads need to be moved, elections opened and closed, and occasionally someone needs to be disciplined. Moderating is generally a thankless and difficult job, and so expecting us to do this work without being allowed to participate is ridiculous.

As far as the multi-site demogame is concerned, I think Shaitan and I at least intend to take only a passing role in the actual game anyway.

 

[Goonie]

@Eyrei

I believe that a certain points, not all, the DG has been over modded. For example, during a PI guilt thread, I posted that I had voted guilty. I hadn't broken any Fanatikan laws or any forums rules, and proceded to use you "Moderator" powers to tell me not to post the way I voted even though it is standard Fanatikan procedure. Donsig, quoted your mod action, and said that we always post the way we vote. Well, that wound him up in the penalty box for 3 days! For what? Following Fanatikan law. No! For going against you! It is the DEMOCRACY game. Not the Democracy + two dictators game. I like you alot(NAME THAT TUNE!!!), but I do not believe that you and Shaitan(very cool guy) should use your mod powers in that type of way. They should only be used, to move threads to the appropriate sub-forums, delete or close bad(Like that Israel thread), and sticky-unsticky, or delete threads where people forgot the poll(Happens to me all the time). I do appreciate the way you guys open elections etc.. Heck I am in charge of that in the MSDG forum, but I do not appreciate the odd time, when you abuse your power.

Goonie(Fanatikan - Fantikese citizen. Dual Citizenship BABY!)

Oh... another thing. TF was the one who suggested the secure forum to discuss new members.

 

[Strider]

I think the Civ3 Demogame forum is seriously under-modded.... Which is how it should be... If the mods are to tough then it would not make the discussions and everything else that goes on as fun. Of course if it was not modded at all there'd be total choas.... making the game almost impossible to run.
I did not like eyrei's mod call on the poll thing BTW

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Goonie
@Eyrei

I believe that a certain points, not all, the DG has been over modded. For example, during a PI guilt thread, I posted that I had voted guilty. I hadn't broken any Fanatikan laws or any forums rules, and proceded to use you "Moderator" powers to tell me not to post the way I voted even though it is standard Fanatikan procedure. Donsig, quoted your mod action, and said that we always post the way we vote. Well, that wound him up in the penalty box for 3 days! For what? Following Fanatikan law. No! For going against you! It is the DEMOCRACY game. Not the Democracy + two dictators game. I like you alot(NAME THAT TUNE!!!), but I do not believe that you and Shaitan(very cool guy) should use your mod powers in that type of way. They should only be used, to move threads to the appropriate sub-forums, delete or close bad(Like that Israel thread), and sticky-unsticky, or delete threads where people forgot the poll(Happens to me all the time). I do appreciate the way you guys open elections etc.. Heck I am in charge of that in the MSDG forum, but I do not appreciate the odd time, when you abuse your power.

Goonie(Fanatikan - Fantikese citizen. Dual Citizenship BABY!)

Oh... another thing. TF was the one who suggested the secure forum to discuss new members.

Goonie, donsig ended up being banned for mocking a moderator action, not for voting differently than I did. If you must know, I voted the same way both you and donsig did in that poll. My reason for forbidding spam posts saying which way you voted was that the last thread had become a flame war and shouting match between the two sides. I have taken actions to avoid flame wars before in this manner, and they have usually worked.

To be honest, this is an ungrateful and insulting thread, brought on by a certain someone's instinct for revenge after begin banned, and I hope Thunderfall will close it.

 

[Immortal]

this is an ungrateful and insulting thread, brought on by a certain someone's instinct for revenge after begin banned,

Welcome to the joy of moderating a forum my friend. Ask AoA, he gets it far worse then anyone else. Whether I agree with Donsig or not, the peoblem of getting new players to "prove their worthiness" must be addressed.

 

[eyrei]

If this thread were actually about security for the MSDG forum, I would gladly join in the discussion. But it is not. I have told them repeatedly what information about 'spies' we can provide, and it is very little. So, for lack of any reliable 'intelligence', they should not be 'reviewing' anyone. As I have said over and over, 'witch hunts' will not be tolerated. At any rate, this is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Sometimes others will not say they have an issue with another poster in the forums, but will PM a Mod to let them know things are getting out of hand. Obviously, the regular posters don't know of this, so to them it may seem that the Mod is being 'heavy-handed', when in reality they are responding to complaints from other members.

If the Mod had the time, then yes, ideally, they should be reading every post. They do not need to respond to every post, but if things do seem to be getting out of hand, then they should step in to calm things down. The Mods have an overall concern with keeping the game operating smoothly. This includes keeping people interested in the game. Members who are comfortable with the game and the other players may not take much of an issue with the 'discussions' that are going on (at least not publicly), but image how players who are new to the game may see them. One heated argument can make some players think twice about trying to play the game. It has a ripple effect.

And, yes, there is not much information that Mods can give about other players. There is no real way to know if a poster is from another forum. How would that be checked? We don't have their IP address from the other site, e-mail addresses are easily made up, so there is no real other information that is static to the point that it can be tracked. You can't exclude members based solely on the suspicion that they may, somehow be from another site without definite proof, so therefore, everyone should be allowed into the game. That was one of the main reasons (at least I always thought) that there wouldn't be any mutli-site games.

 

[donsig]

I understand the need to keep things cool in the demo game forums. My point is that the mods we have that are deeply involved in the demo game have done their part to heat things up. It is nice to have mods involved in the demo game when it comes to moving threads, closing polls and making threads sticky. When it comes to deciding if things are out of hand though they are much too close to see that impartially. And when they step out of line there is little recourse. The mods seem to stick together on mod issues (which is to be expected) so whatdo we do? Go over their heads to Thunderfall? Personally I would only do that on rare occasions since it seems like running to mommy and crying because the big kids won't play right. (BTW, I did pm TF once and I still haven't heard from him.)

As for the multi-site game, we are not the only one concerned about spies. While we all acknowledge that there may be little we can do about this issue (and we've all agreed not to spy on the others) that does not mean no one will try it. This multi-site game is a rare thing and I'd hate to see it ruined because someone cheats. Last I knew all the teams agreed to keep their team rosters public and there was talk of exchanging IP addresses in questionable cases. If the multi-site game is to be workable then our team needs the ability to refuse to to add new team members and it also needs the ability to remove members. Just as posters' right to free speech is not unlimited at CFC, their right to participate in the multi-site demo game at CFC should not be guaranteed.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

If you feel the Mods are not acting in the best interest of the game, then PM them. If they don't respond in a way that explains it, then you can also PM TF and/or make a thread in Site Feedback. There are options when a Mod does something people may not agree with. If you follow them, then there should be no problem. But, once a line is crossed, the Mod may have no choice but to enforce forum policy.

And, yes, the Mods may also get frustrated at times, and maybe not make the best decisions all the time, but it shouldn't be taken as anything personal. Who knows, they may have misunderstood something the first time around. If they made a bad decision then others should have seen it that way as well and there should plenty of support to have that decision be examined. If not, then I'd assume that not everyone saw it as clear-cut an issue.

Also, if you don't get a response from TF, it doesn't mean that he is ignoring you, he may just be busy. I have had PM's I sent to him not be replied to as well. Wait a little while and send him another one as a reminder.

But, again, if there is no proof, other than someone’s suspicion, then there is no real reason to exclude someone from the multi-site game. If there is some proof, then it is a different story. I wouldn't think sharing IP addresses would be ethical. It can be seen as an infringement of the posters rights. Just because they sign up for one site doesn't mean they want their IP address to be shared with everyone else on a different site. If CFC gave out my IP address to a public location on another site, I would have issues with that.

I, personally, don’t think the forums and chat rooms are the best place to try and have this type of game. They are meant as public areas. To say that someone should be allowed over another goes against a large part of what CFC have worked so hard to establish.

 

[Goonie]

Originally posted by eyrei


Goonie, donsig ended up being banned for mocking a moderator action, not for voting differently than I did. If you must know, I voted the same way both you and donsig did in that poll. My reason for forbidding spam posts saying which way you voted was that the last thread had become a flame war and shouting match between the two sides. I have taken actions to avoid flame wars before in this manner, and they have usually worked.

To be honest, this is an ungrateful and insulting thread, brought on by a certain someone's instinct for revenge after begin banned, and I hope Thunderfall will close it.

1. The way you voted doesn't concern me. The fact that donsig was banned for 'questioning' - Not 'mocking'- I find to be unfair and an abuse of your power.

2- The other thread turned into a VERY important discussion, NOT a flame war. A discussion on whether voting guilty in a trial poll even if you dont want to see a punishment is a good thing. Fanatika is stronger because of it. You stop Fanatikans to follow public procedure, that is what I do not like.

 

[Octavian X]

I really don't know what to think. Our forums should have a reputation of being some of the least modded. This allows for our democracy to work more like one should: one where someone's right to free speech are respected. I attribute this to our in-depth moderators.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Goonie
2- The other thread turned into a VERY important discussion, NOT a flame war. A discussion on whether voting guilty in a trial poll even if you dont want to see a punishment is a good thing. Fanatika is stronger because of it. You stop Fanatikans to follow public procedure, that is what I do not like.

Things may have changed since I had been there last, but isn't there a stage where guilt/innocence is voted upon, then if the person is found guilty to then decide the punishment? It seems that the logical step would be to vote on their guilt/innocence, then, if they are found guilty, decide what (if any) punishment they should have.

Would people find someone innocent if they felt their punishment might be too harsh? I don't think people should put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

donsig was banned for failing to follow the proceedures for having an issue with a Moderator's warning. As I said before, once you cross the line, there is little a Mod can do sometimes but enforce the forum rules. The first sentence that donsig wrote was 'questioning', the second sentence was 'mocking'. Right before that a Mod had said to not post your vote choice, he then did that and crossed the line. Simple as that.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

IMHO it's very important to have a moderator moderating the demo game forum's that actually know the system's of the game itself.Since it's become a somewhat complicated game ,it's almost a must for demo game mod to play the game himself ,due to the responsabilety's he has toward's the game.Granted this could lead to interrest-conflict's ,but the other way around would be much worse.

About the spy'ing thing ,i actualy have personally always felt that ,due that it's quite unstoppable ,it should become a part of the game ,BUT:
There should be sub forum's for the Multi-site demo game as in the regular (civIII) demo game ,where normal public and gouverment is devided ,and where the normal public can't view the thing's that are debate'd in the gouverment forum's.Where information is only handed patially to the normal public ,wich could be viewed by spy's ,but not the gouverment information unless the other's manage to get a spy in there.That would actually lead to realistic situation's ,although i can understand that much people object to it.But ,a good number of sub-forum's with restricted passage could in any case tackle some of these problem's.Then it just come's to who you trust ,to ellect them in the gouverment.
Remember ,although you may not agree that forum spying should be a part of this game ,it will probably happen anyway so you better take youre precaution's for it.If it happen's anyway ,why not make the best of it.

 

[gunning1]

Originally posted by Goonie


1. The way you voted doesn't concern me. The fact that donsig was banned for 'questioning' - Not 'mocking'- I find to be unfair and an abuse of your power.

Actually, eyrei asked for everyone not to state what they voted, then Donsig came and said, "Why not, we do it in all of the other threads. I vote blah blah."

That is kind of mocking to me.

 

[Chieftess]

This was a quote from that thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44928

If you are simply going to state which way you voted, don't post here.

eyrei didn't want everyone to just vote "guilty"/"innocent" with out saying anything else. Then donsig outright mocked eyrei.

Why not we do it all the time in our polls!

I voted guilty

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Ah, yes, I forgot to mention the text color. In an attempt to mimick the Mod's text color.... Definately not a questioning response, but one that warranted a ban.

 

[donsig]

Yep, I retaliated and eyrei threw the flag. I did my time. Trouble is eyrei crossed the line in forbidding us to post how we voted. That was unnecessary and I saw it as a cheap shot on his part especially since he had been very vocal in his opposition to what the poll was about! As in the example in my fist post in this thread I retaliated to a cheap shot and the ref threw the flag. I did my time and started this discussion here to focus on what I see as modding problems in the Civ 3 demo game. If one examines the whole thread (and not just the snippets supplied by Chieftess) it will be seen that eyrei's warning 1) did not specify that he was posting as a moderator (I guess the red text was supposed to alert us but he's made similar posts in the MSDG sub-forum that aren't even in red), 2) he jumped right on a post made by Goonie who had been just as vocal in support of the issue being polled, 3) two people posted how they voted after I was banned though nothing was said to them (they voted opposite to they way Goonie and I voted) and 4) Cheiftess also decided to use her mod powers to warn Goonie a second time. Look at that thread from a neutral point of view and the bias will be clear. My whole point is that eyrei, Chieftess (and sometimes Shaitan as well) are too close to the demo game issues to fairly impose warnings and punishments.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough

Things may have changed since I had been there last, but isn't there a stage where guilt/innocence is voted upon, then if the person is found guilty to then decide the punishment? It seems that the logical step would be to vote on their guilt/innocence, then, if they are found guilty, decide what (if any) punishment they should have.

Would people find someone innocent if they felt their punishment might be too harsh? I don't think people should put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

The poll in question was the one where guilt or innocense was to be decided. It was contentious and some players openly stated they were voting innocent not because of actual guilt or innocence but because they thought the whole thing was unwarranted. (IIRC, the accused had even admitted guilt yet people were voting innocent!) By acting as moderator to say we could not state how we voted was not needed. If eyrei had wanted to squelch spamming or flaming then he should have used his mod powers to warn that spamming and flaming would not be tolerated. Instead he chose to squelch all debate which I maintain was wrong especially since he had already publicly stated he was opposed to the whole process being polled.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by donsig
1) did not specify that he was posting as a moderator (I guess the red text was supposed to alert us but he's made similar posts in the MSDG sub-forum that aren't even in red),

Donsig, don't try to claim ignorance here. You, and everyone else in the demogame knows what the red text means.