Discussion on Potential NES and IOT Forum Merger

[Luckymoose]

Player caps are very reasonable. The "first come first serve rule" may have to be considered as a potential game to game basis; depends on the game and whether the GM would see it suitable to not have FCFS placed or otherwise.

First come, first serve is never going to be welcomed in NESing. NESing has never agreed to inclusivity rules, and never will. It belittles the people running the games. It tells them the service and hard work they produce means nothing and that they have no control over who they do said work for. It isn't in the spirit of NESing.

For example: After your comments in this thread I wouldn't trust you to consider a game of mine serious, so I would deny your application entirely. And I should be allowed to do that.

 

[Thlayli]

I don't know what acting like an elitist is going to accomplish though. If you don't want to let someone in your game because they're having trouble writing, or because you don't believe their source knowledge is strong enough, or because other people have put in better applications, that's one thing. We should definitely have total discretion over our games.

But it's easiest for us to protect our independence when we aren't acting like we're better than our players. If we reject people out of hand without explaining to them why, that will just cause them to run to the mods and complain, causing further conflict.

What I'm saying is, the independence of the game-maker is paramount, but they have an obligation to their players, and the people they reject, to at least be polite and have clear guidelines, however they see fit to define them. That's the best way to avoid conflicts between the mods who want to enforce fairness and the game-makers who want to protect quality.

Even if we're holding ourselves to a higher standard, we should be nice, or we'll just drive people away and they'll never put in the effort to improve.

I doubt the moderators are interested in marching in and telling us how to run our games. As long as we aren't actively going out of our way to hurt people's feelings. I think that if the moderators said "Run your games how you like, but observe CFC rules in being courteous to your players," that would be enough for everyone. Issues really only emerge when moderators call players, or imply that they are, stupid. I expect respect and honesty from my players and I'll try to give them the same. If our game moderators are doing that, then I think they can honestly be as restrictive as they want, because people won't be offended by them.

Personally, I prefer to let low-quality players try and fail and thereby learn from their failure, but I guess that's just my personal philosophy and I respect that other mods want to do it differently. Game makers should create an inclusive environment. Game makers should not be forced to include players under any circumstances.

 

[BSmith1068]

I doubt the moderators are interested in marching in and telling us how to run our games. As long as we aren't actively going out of our way to hurt people's feelings. I think that if the moderators said "Run your games how you like, but observe CFC rules in being courteous to your players," that would be enough for everyone.

This. It has always been this.

I feel that a review of the inclusivity rule is in order, as many of the things that are being asked for are already covered in the rule:

GMs, in NESing or other game forums, are not official staff, moderators or administrators. In the eyes for the forum management, they are at best coordinators and have no executive power whatsoever. They may not ban members, keep them from posting or use their GM status to bully or mistreat members of CFC. That being said, CFC management recognizes that GMs do provide a service to the community that is valued by many and that to provide those services in a meaningful way they do need the ability to manage their games effectively.

First Rule of Inclusivity: GMs must make every effort to include everyone who wants to play a game in the game without regard to who they are or the personal likes and dislikes of the GM. First come first served should be the basic approach, but particular games might require selection processes that include: filling a very limited number of possible player slots, applications for key nations, contributions of creative material, statements of intent or plans, guidelines for future history, complexity that demands balance across the “map”, or even combinations of one or more of these. All players should be held to the same standard for the submission of selection material. All such selection processes should be clearly laid out in the OP or rules of the game.

Second rule of Inclusivity: If a GM feels that a player has demonstrated that they cannot produce material that meets the minimum standards for game play even after that player has been given guidance and opportunity to submit again, then the player can be excluded from the game. If an applicant believes that they have been unjustly excluded after two drafts, they can ask a forum moderator to review the situation with the GM. The moderator will only support the exclusion if the GM can demonstrate with posts and pms that a real effort was made to guide the player to improve his submission.

Removing Players from a game: Players come and go freely from most NESes for a variety of reasons and those are usually beyond the GM ability to control, but there could be times when a GM feels it is appropriate to remove a player. Such reasons might include: not sending orders, sending orders that cannot be reasonably interpreted or implemented, disrupting the game thread in ways that break the flow of play or undermine the game or other players. In situations where a player is disruptive to the game and refuses efforts by the GM or other players to change his behavior, the GM should notify a moderator that the disruption is sufficient to warrant removal. The moderator will then step in to resolve the situation and may well ban the offender from further participation in the game. Removing a player for failing to send orders or adhering to the fundamental of mechanics of playing the game is left to the GM. Any abuse of these in game powers by the GM may cause the CFC staff to close the game.

Bottom line - you can't exclude someone from a game just because you don't like them, or you've made an assumption about them based on word of mouth or other experiences. There is a lot of leeway there though to allow you to run your game in the manner that you want to.

Frankly your best supporters are the CFC moderators here. Both EQ and I have moderated games and understand the position of game mods. Neither of us want a player that will disrupt or "ruin" a game.

 

[Thlayli]

Yes, the only flaw in the rules (besides the fact that we need them in the first place, when there haven't traditionally been any terrifying game moderator tyrants abusing players) is that they require the GM to continue trying to accommodate poor players (which is not fun) when they have lots of other things to do with their time.

The prospect of GM's having to stand in front of a panel of mods and defend their game moderating decisions is also little terrifying as well...but it has never been invoked and hopefully it never will be invoked.

Basically, both sides have threatened to do a lot of nasty stuff to each other but neither side has actually acted on it. It's a shame that we can't just back away and replace the rules with vaguer guidelines that still adhere to what the spirit of both parties want.

 

[BSmith1068]

It's a shame that we can't just back away and replace the rules with vaguer guidelines that still adhere to what the spirit of both parties want.

I don't think that is out of the question. My goal, and I think the rest of staff as well, is that we have a vibrant and accessible community where new (and less talented) players have the opportunity to grow and become good players. If we cut them off at the knees for superficial reasons or exclude based on likes and dislikes - especially outside of the actual game environment - then we are not doing a good job of meeting that goal.

There are a lot of ways to creatively (and more diplomatically) direct players that need development that do not include excluding them from the opportunity to learn and grow.

 

[Thlayli]

I appreciate the willingness to compromise.

In my opinion, I don't think any NES mod has ever wanted to exclude anyone for superficial reasons. My understanding of the last crisis that caused the rules to be established was that a player was seen by a moderator as trying to join a game as a thinly-veiled troll, and the moderator responded with natural hostility rejecting him from participation, which caused the player in question to use this as leverage to complain to the mods who then responded with a fairly heavy hand.

So the mods thought the NESers were behaving as elitists, and the NESers subsequently came to see the mods as tyrants, with nobody taking the time to see that the whole thing was just a colossal misunderstanding that could have been avoided.

 

[GenMarshall]

If we reject people out of hand without explaining to them why, that will just cause them to run to the mods and complain, causing further conflict.

Or on another hand. Will have a bad taste for NES and never joining future NES games. Especially if the said player has been harped on by a select few elitist.

 

[BSmith1068]

I appreciate the willingness to compromise.

In my opinion, I don't think any NES mod has ever wanted to exclude anyone for superficial reasons. My understanding of the last crisis that caused the rules to be established was that a player was seen by a moderator as trying to join a game as a thinly-veiled troll, and the moderator responded with natural hostility rejecting him from participation, which caused the player in question to use this as leverage to complain to the mods who then responded with a fairly heavy hand.

So the mods thought the NESers were behaving as elitists, and the NESers subsequently came to see the mods as tyrants, with nobody taking the time to see that the whole thing was just a colossal misunderstanding that could have been avoided.

For the record that happened before my time as a moderator for the forum.

 

[Luckymoose]

Or on another hand. Will have a bad taste for NES and never joining future NES games. Especially if the said player has been harped on by a select few elitist.

Maybe the type of thing you're looking for isn't what we present. Why should we conform because we don't do what you want? This is the issue. I don't care if I hurt your feelings. I am not working harder, for free, just so you can ruin the atmosphere of my game through whatever issues I see as coming up. The problem here is we are forced to continue working to help people when no one wants to do that, and no one did that when I first came around either. Mods who want to teach new players exist; mods who don't also exist. Why should all mods conform to a rule to protect a minority of trouble players who cry to the staff? I never cried to the staff when I was rejected from games in the past. I worked hard in other NESes to prove I deserved a spot in those higher quality games I wanted to be in.

Stop looking for handouts. This ain't a charity.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is there a list posted of mods who are willing to help people who need help or mentoring? If not, there should be. Otherwise, how would anyone know who to approach if that person is new or returning after a long(ish) absence?

I was invited to participate in NES, but after seeing the above post, I'm having doubts about accepting if that's the prevailing attitude ("if you're not good enough from the start, don't even bother"). I know I would need coaching and mentoring at first, but would hate to have to run a gauntlet of guessing who might be approachable for help.

 

[Luckymoose]

I was invited to participate in NES, but after seeing the above post, I'm having doubts about accepting if that's the prevailing attitude ("if you're not good enough from the start, don't even bother"). I know I would need coaching and mentoring at first, but would hate to have to run a gauntlet of guessing who might be approachable for help.

That isn't what I said. But I should be allowed control over who enters a game of mine, specifically those who would cause issues by not taking it seriously or being disruptive in other ways. I'm not doing the work for free. I'm allowed to expect a certain level of care in the players.

 

[BSmith1068]

I don't think anyone is saying that disruptive players should be allowed to play in a game. What I am saying is that everyone should be given a chance to be a productive player, and if they are not then action can be taken.

 

[Luckymoose]

I don't think anyone is saying that disruptive players should be allowed to play in a game. What I am saying is that everyone should be given a chance to be a productive player, and if they are not then action can be taken.

At what level should I be forced to work with people? You're not the one running the games, so what gives you the right to say how long, how much, or how often we have to do these things? It is just staff meddling in the game itself, where it has no place.

 

[GenMarshall]

Is there a list posted of mods who are willing to help people who need help or mentoring? If not, there should be. Otherwise, how would anyone know who to approach if that person is new or returning after a long(ish) absence?

Regular posters and participants can also help along the way. Not just the Game Moderators.

...but after seeing the above post, I'm having doubts about accepting if that's the prevailing attitude ("if you're not good enough from the start, don't even bother").

That was my general feeling. And it still reenforces my first impression view that there's a loud minority voicing "GET OFF MY LAWN N00B!".

Maybe the type of thing you're looking for isn't what we present. Why should we conform because we don't do what you want?

On the contrary, there have been some that caught my attention. However it's the negative atmosphere that's projected towards any potential new commers that give's them second pause to consider not joining any of the NES games and seen as an exclusive community. I don't have to look far since the atmosphere is being shown right here.

I don't care if I hurt your feelings.

Perhaps you should care if you hurt other people's feelings. Do you want to make a lasting impression that NES is a welcoming community? Because the tone of your post, you're making it as it's a very uninviting place to participate where newcomers have to walk on eggshells. I am sure there are others who would share similar experiences I have of being intimidated by the community and it's unwritten rules and procedures. (Thorvald of Lym brought it up sometime ago).

Stop looking for handouts. This ain't a charity.

Did anywhere in my post indicated that I was looking for handouts? Not the slightest. I was offering my own $0.02 on the issue .

I don't think anyone is saying that disruptive players should be allowed to play in a game. What I am saying is that everyone should be given a chance to be a productive player, and if they are not then action can be taken.

This, I agree whole heartedly. Everyone should have a fair chance to be a participant in a game in a friendly and civil environment. Irregardless of creative skill the participant has.

 

[Luckymoose]

The problem with saying we don't welcome newcomers is actively ignoring all the newcomers we welcome. I've helped countless people over the years. Just because you are taken aback by my abrasiveness doesn't mean I'm unwelcoming of new people. That is libelous. D:

 

[BSmith1068]

At what level should I be forced to work with people? You're not the one running the games, so what gives you the right to say how long, how much, or how often we have to do these things? It is just staff meddling in the game itself, where it has no place.

The same level you are "forced" to host the game here on CFC. Hosting a game here on CFC means that you must comply with the rules of CFC. The rules of CFC are that you need to be as inclusive as possible. I think I have been very clear that there are plenty of ways of managing your games that will have the effect you are looking for. It is not too much to ask that you work with CFC moderation when you encounter problems. You might find that we are pretty inclined to favor the GM in most scenarios.

 

[sophie]

Is there a list posted of mods who are willing to help people who need help or mentoring? If not, there should be. Otherwise, how would anyone know who to approach if that person is new or returning after a long(ish) absence?

I was invited to participate in NES, but after seeing the above post, I'm having doubts about accepting if that's the prevailing attitude ("if you're not good enough from the start, don't even bother"). I know I would need coaching and mentoring at first, but would hate to have to run a gauntlet of guessing who might be approachable for help.

In the interests of people not misconstruing what Lucky says or what NESing in general is about - NESing broadly is not about categorically rejecting/excluding people who want to participate and are willing to put in good-faith effort. And categorical exclusion is not really what we're talking about. As long as there is space available a GM is more than happy to have extra players. The problem is that often the smooth functioning of a NES is dependent on competent, reliable players operating the prominent/important characters/countries. If you're running a European NES and France is run by a guy who is going to drop out after a turn or turn in insufficient orders you're going to find your NES rapidly falling apart. As such a GM is going to want to put people that he knows, people that are proven, and people that he can trust to put in the work in the most important positions in the game. On a very general level you will not find a GM, with spots available in their NES say to a prospective player "no, go away and don't come back" assuming the player is joining the NES on good faith (i.e. not a troll). Rather what you'll see is "Hey I'm glad you're interested in joining, but I don't know if you're quite up to the task of running x polity yet, why don't you try y, z, a or b instead [sometimes they'll even give more specific reasons why they think those will be a better fit]." The problems come about when that player doesn't take the alternatives as an answer and insists on playing as their first choice, perhaps even going to the mods to protest.

It would be like putting on a stage production. The GM is the writer/director, and the players are actors in the drama. The Writer/Director provides the framework for the story and the actors provide their own interpretations/performances within that framework. The writer/director is going to put people whom he knows/has worked with in the past in the lead roles because he knows they'll get the job done in a satisfactory way or provide an interesting improvisation on the framework. He's not going to put a walk-on or somebody who has flubbed lines in the past in the lead role. He might give them a lesser part to cut their teeth on, and maybe if they prove themselves capable he'll consider giving them a bigger role next time around. Modding a NES is hard work. Hundreds of hours of work and preparation go into the project before any pre-thread is even posted. They may talk about their project on #nes and get other people excited and invested in the project. Knowing how many NESes die just a couple of turns in, and when the entire production hangs on a couple of performances, why would a GM take a risk on an unknown, or known and inadequate entity?

 

[Luckymoose]

The same level you are "forced" to host the game here on CFC. Hosting a game here on CFC means that you must comply with the rules of CFC. The rules of CFC are that you need to be as inclusive as possible. I think I have been very clear that there are plenty of ways of managing your games that will have the effect you are looking for. It is not too much to ask that you work with CFC moderation when you encounter problems. You might find that we are pretty inclined to favor the GM in most scenarios.

If I post a disclaimer in the rules of my game that tells players I have the right to remove/deny them, would that work? Or do we have to conform to whatever the staff say in regard to our work? Our traffic on CFC is a positive thing. If you want to actively put your fingers in every pie you'll burn through the hobby that adds amazing content to this place just so you can maintain some semblance of power over the handful of cases where crybabies want to be included.

If CFC is so big on inclusion, then why isn't PDMA debate a thing? Why can't we see your staff forums? Why are social groups allowed to be invite only?

 

[BSmith1068]

In the interests of people not misconstruing what Lucky says or what NESing in general is about - NESing broadly is not about categorically rejecting/excluding people who want to participate and are willing to put in good-faith effort. And categorical exclusion is not really what we're talking about. As long as there is space available a GM is more than happy to have extra players. The problem is that often the smooth functioning of a NES is dependent on competent, reliable players operating the prominent/important characters/countries. If you're running a European NES and France is run by a guy who is going to drop out after a turn or turn in insufficient orders you're going to find your NES rapidly falling apart. As such a GM is going to want to put people that he knows, people that are proven, and people that he can trust to put in the work in the most important positions in the game.

This is completely acceptable and is covered in the current rule.

On a very general level you will not find a GM, with spots available in their NES say to a prospective player "no, go away and don't come back" assuming the player is joining the NES on good faith (i.e. not a troll). Rather what you'll see is "Hey I'm glad you're interested in joining, but I don't know if you're quite up to the task of running x polity yet, why don't you try y, z, a or b instead [sometimes they'll even give more specific reasons why they think those will be a better fit]." The problems come about when that player doesn't take the alternatives as an answer and insists on playing as their first choice, perhaps even going to the mods to protest.

And in 99.9% of cases like this I am going to come down in favor of the GM.

 

[BSmith1068]

If I post a disclaimer in the rules of my game that tells players I have the right to remove/deny them, would that work? Or do we have to conform to whatever the staff say in regard to our work? Our traffic on CFC is a positive thing. If you want to actively put your fingers in every pie you'll burn through the hobby that adds amazing content to this place just so you can maintain some semblance of power over the handful of cases where crybabies want to be included.

This concern is outlined in the first part of the rule. Bolding mine:

First Rule of Inclusivity: GMs must make every effort to include everyone who wants to play a game in the game without regard to who they are or the personal likes and dislikes of the GM. First come first served should be the basic approach, but particular games might require selection processes that include: filling a very limited number of possible player slots, applications for key nations, contributions of creative material, statements of intent or plans, guidelines for future history, complexity that demands balance across the “map”, or even combinations of one or more of these. All players should be held to the same standard for the submission of selection material. All such selection processes should be clearly laid out in the OP or rules of the game.