Discussion Thread related to Multipolarity IOT

Patchy said:
Would you be more likely to suspend your disbelife if it was the Obama Republic in africa?

Gotta make sure politics isn't feeding this
Click to expand...

It would be just as stupid and would receive a similar embargo from me.


Sone isn't even a democrat as far as I know.
 
I think provided they gave an IC justification, even a pre-game embargo would be legitimate.

It sounds like they've both given one now, which would make them fine by my standards.

However, I agree with the idea that GMs should more or less be in control of their games (bans of course, should require moderator approval). If a certain ruleset or the GM's policies don't come across well, there's plenty of games for players to go to.
 
Update I got a response, which I was permitted to share.
Birdjaguar said:
I will support GMs in their attempts to keep games orderly, but i will not support actions that are designed to keep posters from joining or contributing to games because of previous history or personal dislike.
Click to expand...
I whole-heartly agree with this stand. All players should be given another chance regardless of previous history. This is the same as what I said here.
kiwitt said:
As a GM, I found the more unruly players tended to get ganged up on and then they are soon out of the game. The key to IOT strategy is to make friends (allies), so being annoying will not get you many.

Each IOT Game thread is different and the GM tolerances to annoying players differ significantly, depending on the type of game he created. A complex/historical game thread like "Iron and Blood", takes detailed planning and negotiation with other players, it is generally accepted that players take the game seriously.

For this reason, I would like the GM to be considered an "Assistant Moderator" of their particular thread. They can report bad game behaviour (which is against the spirit that the GM is trying to create) to the attention of the Moderator of this forum, who can deal with the user as they deem appropriate. The GM's opinion should carry more weight than any other player in that thread, as the game can be derailed and the enjoyment of others curtailed. In addition, especially a complex game like Iron and Blood, the GM is often doing 100's of hours of behind the scenes work in preparation and game updates.
Click to expand...
 
Jesus Christ people, I go to sleep for a few hours and come back to find the forum filled with drama of the worst type - internet drama.
So I've reviewed what's been going on and as far as I can see people are pissed because either
1) Birdjaguar locked the MP3 sign-ups or,
2) Birdjaguar edited sone's sign up post in the above thread

If 1 then I don't see how the 'strikers' have a leg to stand on, given the flame wars that have blown up around PF in two out of tani's last three games a cooling off period was probably needed to stop number three starting.
If 2 then I can see where you're coming from but come on sone, how many MP games have been remotely serious (I believe I made this point while MP2 was ongoing). You joined the game knowing what to expect and given the discussions on metagaming that embargo was always going to be the touch-paper for a another round of flaming.
I'm not going to speculate on whether or not it was correct to remove it but I can see what the intention was and it wasn't interfering with the running of the game just for the hell of it.
 
1) MP2 - I invaded Partitionania and I received a large backlash. 8 players, none of them allied to Partitionania, declared war on me. They did not do the same during previous wars, only to me.
Click to expand...

Something like that happend in MP1, when I was China. 5 or so nations, under Hawaii, declared war on me , even if they were not allies of the DR and India (who, by the way, tricked me into an invasion of DR in order to attack me).

Did I say that it was ooc or metagaming? No. I kicked their ass in game. I made peace with my enemies, and then betrayed the peace treaty and became a superpower. Then Hawaii, along with the entire world (8 or 9 nations) declared war on me, even though some of them were not allied with Hawaii.

Did I say that it was ooc or metagaming? No. I kicked their ass in game. I selled my nation to Oz for one province in Ethiopia, I nuked and wiped out Hawaii, became NGO and managed to coup all Governments of the Chinese States and unite them into a huge alliance that would invade Thorvald's China. I got back all fo China, but all nations in the world, except jeho and two NPC's, hated me.

Did I say that it was ooc or metagaming? No. I build up my defenses and in the end of the game I had created a huge Empire in eastern Asia.

My point: Instead of saying ''it is ooc'', kick their ass in game.
 
Actually an idea just hit me.

A problem I encountered in MP2 was there was no clear boundaries between GM, sub-GM, player, and mechanical authority.

As such, I suggest the following idea to Birdjaguar:

There should be a topic - locked and stickied, I presume - that clearly demarcates where moderator and GM authority lie. While it's been established that bans are not allowed with moderator permission, what about penalties? What classes as metagaming? At which point can a GM be relaxed yet not be passively endorsing breaking of the rules? At what point is a player engaging in OOC disputes and not IC ones?

Just a few of the questions that could be remedied in a single document, that could be modified as gray areas arise.

This will also save Birdjaguar time as well; a lot of problems could probably be resolved simply by looking at this set of rules, rather than GMs continually needing to ask for guidance.
 
christos200 said:
Did I say that it was ooc or metagaming? No. I kicked their ass in game. I selled my nation to Oz for one province in Ethiopia, I nuked and wiped out Hawaii, became NGO and managed to coup all Governments of the Chinese States and unite them into a huge alliance that would invade Thorvald's China. I got back all fo China, but all nations in the world, except jeho and two NPC's, hated me.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the fun we had *stares dreamy out of the window*


But on topic.

@Birdjaguar:
I'm not laying judgement on whether or not the MP3 actions where in itself justified or not. (that would be PDMA I believe) I will however comment on how I think future situations may be better handled. My opinion on that revolves around the argument that has been made several times now, the GM should be supreme in his game.
In my experience IOTfolk are very self-regulating when it comes to their game-mechanics and IOT rules. We all believe that the GM is the supreme ruler when it comes to the mechanics of HIS game. This means that if the GM passes judgement on a situation we abide by it.
In my mind there are two separate type of situations that need to be dealt with differently. The first is related to game mechanics (1) the other to personal insult/language (2).

1) A moderator should consult with the GM. The GM should pass judgement on the issue. The GM has invested time in his game and envisioned a certain game, he should be able to make this vision come true.
If the moderator suspects ulterior motives in play, by all means share them with the GM, tell the GM to take these into account, but let the GM pass the judgement.

2) A moderator should interfere. I see a role for the moderator as the person who guards the atmosphere of the whole subforum. language, personal insults, a person about to crack etc. please act directly, without GM consulting, but do it in such a manner that it doesn't interfere with the IOT itself.

My point is mainly that I would see the moderator moderate the actual IOTs from the shadows, if you will, via the GMs.


Finally I have 3 points on closing IOT gamethreads. I am against that and well because;

1) With such an action the moderator would be punishing the whole community and not just the offender(s). You hit the players who just want to play the game but most of all you hit the GM, very hard.
2) By closing a gamethread the moderator creates unnecessary tensions and animosity within the community. Closing a gamethread will result in people who side with the "offender" and those who side against him. I'm sure I don't have to paint a picture what this can lead to.
3) When a moderator closes a thread, especially when the moderator says that the reopening of the thread depends on a specific player, leaves the actual moderating, imho, to the players. I may be pro self-regulating, but forced self-regulating never works, furthermore this will increases the chances mentioned in point 2.


That's my opinion on the matter, hope it helps.

mayor
 
Something like that happend in MP1, when I was China. 5 or so nations, under Hawaii, declared war on me , even if they were not allies of the DR and India (who, by the way, tricked me into an invasion of DR in order to attack me).
Click to expand...
I cannot stand such blatant lies. It is true that I were ambiguous in my responses when you said that you were going to invade the DR, mentioning that I was bound by the treaty to help them in some way and that even 1 EP would suffice as help. But don't lie, you invaded the DR because YOU wanted it, and if I had said "lolnop" you would probably have attacked me first after a build-up.

Also, the League of I-don't-know-what, led by Hawai'i was created as an anti-Chinese alliance long before that war happened, and they saw the opportunity to join the war when you attacked the DR and nuked me. And I refused their help because they had WMDs.
 
Sonic and Mayor both have very good ideas.

Sorry, I'll stop that now. Promise. ;)
 
I cannot stand such blatant lies. It is true that I were ambiguous in my responses when you said that you were going to invade the DR, mentioning that I was bound by the treaty to help them in some way and that even 1 EP would suffice as help. But don't lie, you invaded the DR because YOU wanted it, and if I had said "lolnop" you would probably have attacked me first after a build-up.

Also, the League of I-don't-know-what, led by Hawai'i was created as an anti-Chinese alliance long before that war happened, and they saw the opportunity to join the war when you attacked the DR and nuked me. And I refused their help because they had WMDs.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is lying. I asked you what your reaction would be to an invasion of the DR. You told me taht you supported me and that you would just send them 1 EP in order to not break the alliance.

By the way, if it was not for Hawaii, India would have been part of the Chinese Empire.
 
JoanK said:
I cannot stand such blatant lies. It is true that I were ambiguous in my responses when you said that you were going to invade the DR, mentioning that I was bound by the treaty to help them in some way and that even 1 EP would suffice as help. But don't lie, you invaded the DR because YOU wanted it, and if I had said "lolnop" you would probably have attacked me first after a build-up.

Also, the League of I-don't-know-what, led by Hawai'i was created as an anti-Chinese alliance long before that war happened, and they saw the opportunity to join the war when you attacked the DR and nuked me. And I refused their help because they had WMDs.
Click to expand...

christos200 said:
You are the one who is lying. I asked you what your reaction would be to an invasion of the DR. You told me taht you supported me and that you would just send them 1 EP in order to not break the alliance.

By the way, if it was not for Hawaii, India would have been part of the Chinese Empire.
Click to expand...

People, keep the grudges from the past out of this thread!
 
Tani's and Mayor's points are golden, especilly as we must maintain the notion that in IOT the GM is the god. They must have the control of their game. A thread on rules will ensure the GM can maintain order without losing control and that a criteria against the closing of game threads ensures the community is not punished for the actions of a few. We must ensure fun.
 
Osmowstroyer said:
I don't accept the the intervention of the Moderators Imperii.
Click to expand...

Moderatores Imperii is correct Latin, for the record. Moderator is 3rd declension, therefore Moderatores, the nominative plural form, is used because it is the subject "Moderators." Imperium was correct in your statement. it is 2nd declension neuter, therefore Imperii, the genitive singular form, shows possession, translated in this case as "of the government/empire."
Therefore, "Moderators of the empire."
And there's your daily Latin lesson :p

Anyways. I find this hilarious. Absolutely laugh out loud hilarious. Don't mind me, I'll just sit here like Petyr Baelish, and wait until some drastic moves are made to state my opinion.
 
I'll sit like some Dornish prince (I have not read DwD, and before it Dorne hasn't done anything but sit there) and wait for things to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tee Kay
IOT Classic
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Danwar
Danwar
Leoreth
City Names Feedback Thread
Replies
16
Views
942
AOS9001
AOS9001
Navelgazer
What are your priorities for Commander Promotions?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
uppi
U
E
UI: zooming out more
Replies
4
Views
796
axatin
A
j51
Debuffing Cavalry
Replies
13
Views
505
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Back
Top Bottom