Discussion on Potential NES and IOT Forum Merger

[Luckymoose]

Inclusivity should not be a weapon used to threaten game runners.

 

[Thlayli]

I don't think it will be, honestly. Nobody's ever tried to threaten me or dictate to me who I can and can't have in my NES, and I'd be shocked (shocked!) if anyone tried to do so. If they did I'd just take the whole thing somewhere else.

Of course, my NES is open to all IOTers and NESers and if someone doesn't get a spot, I try my best to find another place for them to play, unless their English is totally unreadable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Lucky, I am old enough to have selective memory, you are not. For years NESes allowed "first come first served" on selecting nations. In some games mods took applications for a few specific countries, but most games did not. While I was a moderator there, IIRC we had one inclusivity blow up in NESing (maybe 2) and one in IOT. When I wrote the rules below, they were accepted, maybe not in a vote, but I put them in place and and we moved right along.

We worked fine with Birdjaguar. Maybe we aren't the problem?

Well, I'm pretty easy to work with and you guys gave me years to get things right. The hostile work environment that is NESing today makes getting along tough. You might put BSmith on probation for two years and see if he can mend his ways.

Then I guess you are OK with the inclusivity rule then seeing how BJ wrote it (word for word I might add) with consultation with the NES community? That and the fact that the whole inclusivity issue that sparked them happened on his watch and before I was even a mod in NES?

EDIT: That was in response to Lucky...

Damn, did I write those? If you say so Mr. Smith. Those days were dark days.

January 1540 was mild by typical Augsburg standards, the city was buttoned up tight most nights. One evening, after dark, and towards the end of the month, a knock came on the gate of the Verner compound. Rupert the head of the household servants bundled himself in a great coat and hurried out to the gate. Beyond the bearded face opposite him in the peep hole he could see torches and gleaming steel. Rupert acquiesced when they demanded he open the gate. He stoutly argued that his master was not at home and no one could be admitted into the offices after dark. The soldiers laughed and pushed him aside and entered anyway. Others spread out into the warehouses and workshops that made up the House of Verner in Augsburg. It was a largish compound of several acres. Two more servants were dragged out into the cold and huddled next to Rupert as the armed men searched the grounds. The more they searched the less they found and more frustrated they became. Soon the looking become wrecking and looting the personal possessions and pantries. Within an hour 30 drunken soldiers staggered about collecting whatever they could and poking their fingers into Rupert’s chest demanding to know where Pietro Verner and his old man were hiding, and his wife too, especially his young and beautiful wife. He didn’t know and begged them to stop their pillaging for surely the master would return next Tuesday from a trip to Munich. Sometime after midnight the fire started. The soldiers merely stood back and enjoyed the warmth; by the time the neighborhood woke to the clamor, it was far too large to put out, so they just worked to protect their own buildings from sparks and embers. By dawn all that remained was a stone arch over the gate that read “House of Verner—Augsburg” and the blackened shell of the house whose walls were stone.

 

[Luckymoose]

Lucky, I am old enough to have selective memory, you are not. For years NESes allowed "first come first served" on selecting nations. In some games mods took applications for a few specific countries, but most games did not. While I was a moderator there, IIRC we had one inclusivity blow up in NESing (maybe 2) and one in IOT. When I wrote the rules below, they were accepted, maybe not in a vote, but I put them in place and and we moved right along.

Well, I'm pretty easy to work with and you guys gave me years to get things right. The hostile work environment that is NESing today makes getting along tough. You might put BSmith on probation for two years and see if he can mend his ways.

That's simply disingenuous, Bird. You know we've always, at least in my time here, had reservation systems. I have never been part of a NESing where first come, first serve was the only way things worked. The higher quality, main event NESes were always full of reservations and mod picks for spots.

The inclusivity rules as enforced simply ignore how NESing works. If we allow rogue players to threaten the entirety of a game for their own selfish desires to play, we have failed as a hobby.

 

[BSmith1068]

Damn, did I write those? If you say so Mr. Smith. Those days were dark days.

Here is where I got them from:

This is getting pretty close to final:

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.

And the discussion of the sticking of the above rules starts here:

Moderator Action: I am well caught up on the “That One Time” incident. I feel that I need to remind everyone of the ruling and subsequent rule clarifications. I have also stickied the rules for inclusivity in this fourm. NES gets a lot of autonomy, but does not operate in a vacuum. At this time, any further discussions regarding moderator actions should be relegated to PMs/Private communication. Specific concerns with the rules for inclusivity may be discussed, but it must be civil and respectful.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's simply disingenuous, Bird. You know we've always, at least in my time here, had reservation systems. I have never been part of a NESing where first come, first serve was the only way things worked. The higher quality, main event NESes were always full of reservations and mod picks for spots.

The inclusivity rules as enforced simply ignore how NESing works. If we allow rogue players to threaten the entirety of a game for their own selfish desires to play, we have failed as a hobby.

Slow down. The NESes with reservation systems were only the historical games run by leading game mods, but IIRC most of the games offered were not of that type. Most games were cradle based or fantasy based or rooted in some other context where first come first served was always the rule. The reservation/player selection process was reserved for only some of the games being played and not the majority. Also as I recall, those worked very well.

Under the exclusivity rules, a reservation system is allowed because in those big historically based games key nations need good players. Those rules try to span the gap between unilateral game mod authority to ban whoever they want whenever they want and a rigid everyone can play openness. Clearly, compromise is difficult for some people (and I'm not pointing a finger at you Lucky.)

 

[Luckymoose]

Slow down. The NESes with reservation systems were only the historical games run by leading game mods, but IIRC most of the games offered were not of that type. Most games were cradle based or fantasy based or rooted in some other context where first come first served was always the rule. The reservation/player selection process was reserved for only some of the games being played and not the majority. Also as I recall, those worked very well.

Under the exclusivity rules, a reservation system is allowed because in those big historically based games key nations need good players. Those rules try to span the gap between unilateral game mod authority to ban whoever they want whenever they want and a rigid everyone can play openness. Clearly, compromise is difficult for some people (and I'm not pointing a finger at you Lucky.)

Why must it be limited to historical big NESes when such a system can be, and should be, used on any type of NES to craft the ideal scenario for not only the players but also the mod running it? There should always be mod rights to determine who can play in the games they run. The workload is heavy for the more serious endeavors, and we shouldn't be forced to do more work for people we have no need or desire to do that work for. This is effectively saying to the NES mods, "Sure you work hard, but you have no choice but to do this work for everyone." The rules basically remove the rights of the person providing the service in favor of people not providing the service, and nothing good can come of that.

 

[Thlayli]

The rules do say, if we want to define that a game has limited spots, and only pick the best players for those spots, it's just a matter of saying that beforehand so people's expectations are set, and then picking those of your friends who you like the most for those spots, by saying that their applications were the best.

Since it's subjective, you can pretty much define it however you want. They're giving us autonomy, but also trying to be neutral at the same time because they don't have a choice.

 

[Luckymoose]

The rules do say, if we want to define that a game has limited spots, and only pick the best players for those spots, it's just a matter of saying that beforehand so people's expectations are set, and then picking those of your friends who you like the most for those spots, by saying that their applications were the best.

Since it's subjective, you can pretty much define it however you want. They're giving us autonomy, but also trying to be neutral at the same time because they don't have a choice.

They do have a choice. They make the rules.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why must it be limited to historical big NESes when such a system can be, and should be, used on any type of NES to craft the ideal scenario for not only the players but also the mod running it? There should always be mod rights to determine who can play in the games they run. The workload is heavy for the more serious endeavors, and we shouldn't be forced to do more work for people we have no need or desire to do that work for. This is effectively saying to the NES mods, "Sure you work hard, but you have no choice but to do this work for everyone." The rules basically remove the rights of the person providing the service in favor of people not providing the service, and nothing good can come of that.

It doesn't have to be only historical games, that was just where it was focused in the past. The rules allow for what you want.

They do have a choice. They make the rules.

The purpose of writing things down is so that everyone gets the same story. Unwritten rules lead to confusion.

 

[Azale]

So wait, we can move around people where we want and exclude certain others as long as we state it explicitly in the rules?

 

[Sonereal]

So wait, we can move around people where we want and exclude certain others as long as we state it explicitly in the rules?

Of course.

Gah. I've been trying to tell everybody this forever! Legalism is the best -ism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So wait, we can move around people where we want and exclude certain others as long as we state it explicitly in the rules?

Be careful though. When you post a new game you have to be very clear about what the nation selection rules are and if and how any nations will be filled by some method other than first come first served. These or combinations of these could be part of the OP:

*Limited number of players
*Specific designated nations filled through a defined application process
*Players provide top three choices for nations, game mod makes final selection
*Pre game submission of nation or cultural content that must be approved
*Number of nations in map areas limited
etc.

If your criteria are clearly spelled out and you follow your own rules, there are all kinds of ways to have better control over how your game is put together. I see no reason that you couldn't start a new game with a small number of players and have all the slots filled when you post. It's pretty anti social, but playing a small game among friends should be OK.

I think moving people around within a game is more difficult. Folks can get attached to the nations they build and they may have very long range plans. I would think that moving someone would require their agreement.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would be happy to provide mentoring or revisions to anybody who feels like they're having trouble.

Lucky does not speak for all of us; please believe me when we say we are trying to make an inclusive, welcoming community, one that can can balance "growing promising players" with "preventing disruptive players from ruining everybody else's experience."


You bring up an excellent point, though, Valka -- prospective players definitely need some sort of safe space, as well as knowing who to go to for help and support. Do you have any suggestions as to what you might find useful?

hm...
Maybe a "Quick guide to NES and IOT" thread with tips for prospective players, gms, and so on?

Some kind of guide, definitely. And it needs to start out for the absolute novices, who have just heard of these games and don't really know for sure what kind of games they are.

I have some idea, but honestly, the closest activity I've ever done to this was participating in the Faction Game at Kenzerco forums (official site of the company that puts out the Knights of the Dinner Table magazine, and the HackMaster and Kingdoms of Kalamar games; that's also where the Fuzzy Knights webcomic started).

Some people there started doing little role-playing posts outside of the official PBP areas, and created factions that may seem childish to those not involved (ie. Rabbits, Cats, Rangers, Dragons, Fuzzy Knights, Hobbits, etc.), but we used the idea of "forum member-as-character" to create some fun adventures. This spread over much of the GenTalk forum (similar to OT here) and even though the Faction Game was eventually given its own subforum, some people continued to post "in character" elsewhere (ie. in the annual Forum Awards Ceremony - recognition of people for excellence in game posting, writing, artistry, and good forum citizenship). Attaining new post count levels were role-played as a rise in rank at a medieval court would be, and some people put a lot of thought and creativity into their posts - especially at King/Queen and Emperor/Empress level, as not many people were able to achieve a post count of 10,000.

So that's the kind of interactive, cooperative storytelling I know about. I've had the chance now to explore the NES forum here and realize that I am really not prepared to jump into something like these games since they're much more structured than what I was accustomed to at the other site. I'm a prime example of someone who's interested - and while I know how to write my part in an online pie fight that takes place in the great hall of a castle or more serious medieval-style court scenes, I haven't the foggiest clue how to get started here or know who to ask for help.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Merger is off due for inadequate support in one of the sub communities. As viewing and analyzing which of the objections are solvable, particularly a more fleshed out and structured plan, and predicted benefits, a new plan may be floated at a later date, assuming anybody wants to take up that task. If so, a new thread will be generated then. This one is is now closed.