Discussion: Should we remove all game 1 info from the registry?

[Shaitan]

Eyrei requested 3 separate times that Game 1 information be kept out of the Game 2 forums. He specifically noted that in the citizen registry you should put n/a for city and not put Game 1 information into the past mandates. The mass disregard for this was brought to my attention by a concerned citizen.

I consulted with both eyrei and Duke of Marlbrough. All three of us agreed the information should be removed. Duke especially cited the need for a clean break from the previous game. He has been through migrating to a new democracy game with the Civ2 players. We collectively and unanimously decided to remove the information that was specific to Game 1.

We are the mods for both sets of forums. It is our job as mods to keep them functioning as separate entities, otherwise there is no justification for our having new forums.

What's done is done. It was done to enforce a mod's decree and in support of our overall mandate.

Things can always change. That is why eyrei started this discussion thread. I suggest we return to a constructive discussion of our options.

 

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by eyrei


If anyone feels they must have their game 1 info in the registry, feel free to replace it pending the conclusion of this discussion and poll.

And to all of you who think this is some sort of violation of your rights, I suggest you take a moment and look at all the work Shaitan has put into creating and organizing this forum. If he doesn't want game 1 info in the registry, I think we should humor him. What exactly is the big deal?

IMO, I would say, if the citizens want game 1 info in the registry, I think we should humour them. What exactly is the big deal?

Thank-you for the information about the decision process. I will use the PM system if I have anything else to add in the moderating regards.

 

[disorganizer]

cp:
i think the big issue is that this is a new game. if you post 100 positions you held in the 1st game, this may predefine elections (who wants to run against falcon?). it may also spoil away new people thinking "wow, they had so many positions. how can i compete with them?".
and, well, it may spoil some peoples roleplay.
after all, if you allow game1 things in the registry, what would be the reason for them being denied in the rest of the forum? and if they are not denied there, why do we use a new forum?

i totally secon shaitan and eyrei here.

why cant you just leave the old things behind...

cp:
whats the big deal in letting them out? or did you put any civ2 or other experience into your game1 info?

 

[Octavian X]

I still would've like to have known of this decision by all three mods. Anyway, I thought the registry was to be run by the head of the census department, Danke. This incident might have been more validated if Danke had been in on the process.

 

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by disorganizer
cp:
i think the big issue is that this is a new game. if you post 100 positions you held in the 1st game, this may predefine elections (who wants to run against falcon?). it may also spoil away new people thinking "wow, they had so many positions. how can i compete with them?".

I agree with you here. However, I do not think this should be moderated. Can't we find better work for them to do besides editing out game #1 information? Gee, I am glad I am not a mod.

Originally posted by disorganizer
and, well, it may spoil some peoples roleplay.
after all, if you allow game1 things in the registry, what would be the reason for them being denied in the rest of the forum? and if they are not denied there, why do we use a new forum?

A darn good question. Why do we have a new forum? And why should we restrict posts? Who else voted with me that the rules are getting more and more oppressive? (alright, maybe no one, but I think so)

Originally posted by disorganizer
why cant you just leave the old things behind...
cp: whats the big deal in letting them out? or did you put any civ2 or other experience into your game1 info?

Whether I did or not is irrelevant to me. You can check, if you like, for the record. I think we learned a lot of things from game #1. I also think it was, in general, a very positive experience. And therefore, it should not be surpressed. I agree it should not be the basis of anything we do here. But what are we really trying to achieve here?

I can't believe I am wasting my time on this... don't we have more pressing matters? Wait, elections start tomorrow.... ahem.... puts on suit and tie....

Edit: Doh, I said I wouldn't stray from topic agian! Wait, it is about game #1! Delete it!

 

[starlifter]

by CP:

A darn good question. Why do we have a new forum? And why should we restrict posts? Who else voted with me that the rules are getting more and more oppressive? (alright, maybe no one, but I think so)

As a new person to the Civ3 Demo game, I am quite amazed at the rat's maze of rules, obstacles, red tape, etc. While it may be fun for some people, it is not a selling point for most.

I take it from scanning 8 or 9 other threads so far that the decline in Civ 3 Demo participation is part of what is driving the rules changes to the constitition. I'm wondering if people tend to stay away from some stuff and not vote in other stuff because of how far away from the game itself that some of this stuff, as well as the bickering and arguing and overall stiffling atmoshpere presented.

Well, as an objective new person without whatever baggage that went on before in the Demo game, that's the impression I have so far.

About the Registry in particular... what real difference does it make? Judging from some people's signatures, there is a certain pride in what some people did and accomplished in the prior game, and I for one don't mind seeing it there. We have people that post such info in the Civ 2 Demo game registry, and it does not affect anything that I know of. In fact, I find it interesting to see what some people have done in the past.

This disturbing thing, however, is 3rd party editing of posts, be it a Mod or anyone else. Modding is one thing... but post altering is another. Mod changes should be clear, signed, and generally highlighted somehow (like in red) so there is no confusion by others just what happened.

If something on a large scale should be done like this thread talks about, then a post should be made, like "Everyone remove all game 1 info in a week, or a mod will do it for you... signed, Mr. Moderator".

 

[Danke]

Originally posted by Octavian X
I still would've like to have known of this decision by all three mods. Anyway, I thought the registry was to be run by the head of the census department, Danke. This incident might have been more validated if Danke had been in on the process.

I was out of action for most of this week, so missed much of the new forum setup (evidenced by my being the 30th citizen in the registry), so I don't feel I could have been involved even if I had wanted. I am thankful that the registry was set up immediately, instead of waiting for me to show up. I do like that some of the RPG aspects (i.e. pension, even though I am against the whole pension concept myself) are included in the registry, which I had been thinking of anway.

I tend to come down firmly on the side of "No game 1 info" for this game. We're building a new civilization with a new culture, new institutions, etc. I find Game 1 experience to be irrelevent to Fanatika. I also trust the mods, particularly based on the experience of several people in the Civ2 demogame transition, that removing game 1 info will help the game.

That being said, I would prefer to enforce (in general) the no game 1 ethic through a shared belief rather than mod action, but think in this case it was necessary as several people have been very reluctant to let go.

And thanks for thinking of me, Octavian

 

[eyrei]

I do see your point, starlifter, but a great many people enjoy making these rules and enforcing them. I haven't read the constitution myself since term 3 of last game, I don't think. There is just too much of it, and I know enough to keep out of trouble most of the time. You really only have to know it inside and out if you want to run for a leader position.

What we have managed to achieve is a system of checks and balances that ensures no one person or group can run away with all the power. We at times have a very large population base, and this causes confusion and increases the number of people that disagree on an issue proportionally, so there is a lot of arguing.

The CIV2 demo game is much smaller, and there are fewer things to argue about, as the winning strategies for CIV2 are pretty much set in stone.

The number of rules may seem daunting at first, but they actually do keep the game running pretty smoothly once we actually start playing.

 

[Danke]

Actually, after thinking about this a little more (wow, *two* neurons fired!), I would say Mod removal of Game 1 references shouyld *only* happen in the RPG sub-forum.

There it is then.

 

[Myartar]

Originally posted by disorganizer

i think the big issue is that this is a new game. if you post 100 positions you held in the 1st game, this may predefine elections (who wants to run against falcon?). it may also spoil away new people thinking "wow, they had so many positions. how can i compete with them?".

I joined the last game at the begining of term 4 and by then, there were very established players who had shown leadership abilities and had done a GREAT job. What it made me do is post often and show I was an active player who other could depend on. What's wrong w/ having to do that? I personally won't vote for anyone who's been on the boards 2 days, runs and wins, and disappears. I'm guilty of disappearing after being put in a position myself(if anyone is mad at me or anything over that still, I am sorry. There was a good reason behind it) and know what it can do. Showing how you worked in game 1 shows you will here and new players can work thier way up like we had to in game 1.

and, well, it may spoil some peoples roleplay.

I've shared my opinion on that already, but I'll share somemore with an example.
I live in southern Missouri, known as the Ozarks. It's very rural and we have hillbillys and backwoods people. The land is very cheap and b/c of that, lots of strange little groups set up shop in the middle of nowhere out here. While many people don't agree with what some people believe or what they do on thier land, as long as they stay on thier land when they do it, it's none of our business. If we go on to thier land, we respect thier belief and do as they wish, but if they come off thier land and tell us to do something different in public, then we have a problem.
Now there is an RPG forum and if I ever venture into it, I'll RP and follow thier rules. However, I STRONGLY ask that you don't force others outside the RPG forum not to say certian things b/c it will spoil some people's RP.
I'm fighting this so hard now, b/c I think this could lead to a slippery slope with the whole game becoming RP. I mean, if we forbid talk of game 1, what's next?

 

[Octavian X]

I think we can all agree that game one was a great experience, even though I joined at the beginning of the fourth. Why do we want to ban all talk of a great game? We've learned a lot of things from the original game. In the registry, could we at least create another line for old demogame positions?