1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Game Settings Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by Sommerswerd, May 23, 2012.

  1. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    I kind of agree with changing our espionage vote, though I guess it's become some kind of competition between our team and RB team, and changing it now will hurt our pride. =P

    Anyway, using the cheap espionage actions is a way to slow down a runaway civ, and I guess if we are afraid of being outrun by someone it would be good for us to have the opportunity to use it.
     
  2. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    I'd argue against any changes to the game rules from this point forward. Teams are selecting their leaders and civs. We can't say what their decision making process is, but it's entirely possible that espionage fully on is part of that process, as it has been for our team.

    An end to game setting votes was called by the independent map maker. We clarified one issue that was still unresolved, and LP lost. It doesn't warrant re-opening voting just because the decision didn't go his way. How will we respond if we change this setting, today, or in a few days, and a team says "No fair! I want a re-do on my leader pick!"
     
  3. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    IIRC settings have already been changed after some teams started picking. This just sounds like the move sommer tried, close the votingprocedure when it looks like you got the settings you want..

    However I agree that it's weird settings are changing while people have started picking leaders.

    I guess I just don't understand how team CFC is meant to be managed. Did we just pick settings on a whim? Or do we have some kind of dictator/elders council who decides our vote for settings?
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) I would say we are democracy.
     
  5. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    You know, there hasn't been a lot that you've missed out on. ;)

    Things are proposed/put forward by members, and other members either voice their opposition or agreement.
     
  6. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Just an update. I posted this in the Planning thread:
    EDIT:We really need a clearly defined process to determine the legitimacy of official polls. I don't have any problem with anyone who wants to throw up "FYI" polls or "straw-poll" but if a poll is intended to have any official force on the team, we need to vote on a Constitutional process for legitimizing polls. I will post the process that AMAZON used in the Constitution thread for folks to take a look at.

    @ cavscout - Is this gonna be Kaz part deaux?:lol: If so I think I would rather be Poll Master, or Leader of the "Silent Majority" than Captain or Diplomat... know what I'm sayin;)
     
  7. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    yada yada.. So conclude the debate with changing our vote, I'm sure thats the most effective way to end the debate. And then your'e not even ignoring the majority of the team.. =)
     
  8. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Make no mistake Majic. I don't want to end this internal debate. I know I don't need to tell cavscout this as he already knows from Team Kaz... Endless debating, arguing and fighting keeps things interesting on the team (especially over polls:D). By the end of BTS MTDG I, Team Kaz had the most participation by far, because we did the most arguing.
     
  9. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    But still, as soon as the majority seems to agree with you, you want to close voting. And when it seems the majority is against you, suddenly you start delaying and claim the poll-administration is very important to you. I'm starting to understand why people don't like your way of handling these things..
     
  10. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    I know, I'm new, and that a lot of you guys have a history, but stuff like "you guys have your poll" is really belittling rhetoric, and it's a little off-putting. You got your style, Sommers, and I respect that, but since we're a team I'd really wish that kind of us-VS-them rhetoric is reserved for the public forum.

    I have nothing against a solid argument, in fact I hope that we'll have heaps of them - it's the best way to learn I think. So, I'd really welcome an elaboration on WHY you're adamant when it comes to espy, from a tactical and diplomatic perspective, infinitely more than the grandiose-sounding "constitutional process for legitimizing polls" :)D) - although I do see a need for setting some ground rules.

    However, in the current absence of such rules, I don't see how a vote like the one we're talking about is a problem. It's just 18 people with access to this forum, so the organizational problem is non-existent. And, this question being almost boolean in nature (well.. no, but it's just 3 real options and no need for a debate on what options to poll), how could it be posed differently? Would people vote differently if we made the process of having a poll more bureaucratic?

    More interesting: Will the team start to be "democratic" only when we agree on what is "legitimate" polls? If yes, like you suggest, really, then this should be decided fast. With a poll? :D

    Listen, I'm not trying to get on your bad side here, but if we're gonna be chatting for a year, I might as well just be myself and give a damn.

    When it comes to the actual matter at hand,, @Majic, it's 40/60, but as the team AFAIK is 18 people, it's at least 4 votes from an absolute majority. So, there's no certainty that full espy is against the majority of the team. It's against the majority vote though. Right of this moment at least. But as a lot of the players were added quite late, I have no problem accepting that our current votes on settings are set in stone.

    The questions this debate has stirred up are, however, quite interesting.
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    I apologize for making belittling and off-putting rhetoric.:( I have edited the offensive statements out of my comments.

    You asked for a solid argument. I can offer an argument and let you decide what is solid.

    A. On the issue of changing our team vote for Full Espy ON

    There are 4 primary, practical reasons I think we should not change our team vote and 2 secondary, philisophical reasons. I will start with the practical ones because they are the most important.

    1. Changing our Team vote will make our team look disorganized and foolish
    2. Changing our Team vote will make our team look weak/disunited
    3. Changing our Team vote will make our team look unreliable and untrustworty
    4. Changing our Team vote will make me personally look foolish and weak

    The less important, but still important philisophical reasons we should not change our team vote

    1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage
    2. Changing our Team vote on a controversial issue without first making an official process sets a bad precedent that will hamstring our Team for the rest of the game

    Now I will discuss each issue briefly (at least briefly for me;)). If a point needs clarification or elaboration, just ask.

    Reason 1- Changing our Team vote will make our team look disorganized and foolish

    One of the things that will damage our Team in the all-important diplomacy with other Teams is if the other Teams already have a perception of us as clowns or bufoons. Our team choices have been posted on the threads for weeks. This issue is highly controversial and has been debated and argued ad-nauseum in the threads. For us to come back now and publicly say we want to reopen the issue after it has been voted on by all teams and decided makes it look like we don't have our act together. It makes it look like no one knows what the hell is going on on our team, no one is keeping track of anything, it's just total chaos. This will cause teams to regard us as rookies and not their favored trading partners. AMAZON faced a similar perception last game, as did Kaz in the game before that. What enabled us to work around that both times was the pressure of Tech trading. Even though the teams did not take us seriously and thought we were lightweights, the had to ally with us, against their true wishes, because in a tech trading game, you must form tech alliances quickly or you lose. In this game there is no tech trading, so there is no pressure to ally with people you dont take serious as contenders. If teams regard us as clowns, they will not ally with us, and we will be stomped.

    2. Changing our Team vote will make our team look weak/disunited

    Another important aspect of dealing with other Teams is unity. 2metra has already touched on this. Note how united team RB, Spanish Poly, and others seem on the threads. You can bet that they argue and disagree with each other in private, but they always rally behind each other in public. Even the ones who have nothing of substance to add to the arguments will hurl insults and post mocking smileys and such directed at "enemies" of their teammates. This makes their team appear stronger, and their points seem more valid, because many people seem to be agreeing with them.

    In diplomacy, there will be many sources of disagreement and our team will have to negotiate with the other teams. If we have a reputation for backing each other up and being united, the other teams will respect our Diplomat(s), because they will know that the members of the Team speak with one voice. If teams believe we are fractured, they will contact individual members of our team who are not official diplomats by PM and try to convince them to sway our Teams' votes and such. If they don't like the deal the Diplomat is offering, they will say "Hrrmmph, scew that, I'll just PM so-and-so, and tell him to throw up a poll over there to get them to give us what we want. If we start off the game looking disunited, we will be dealing with this issue all game. Players on the Team will start getting suspicious of each other, accusing each other of being moles for other teams and such. It will be a mess.

    In the game, there will be many situations (believe me, this is only the beginning) where members of different teams disagree on issues/rule interpretations, reloads, etc. The teams that rally behind each other will win the debate, and get the best result for their team. The teams that argue among themselves will only help the other teams to prove their point and get the best outcome for the other teams.

    3. Changing our Team vote will make our team look unreliable and untrustworty

    One of the most important things to our potential allies is that they can count on us. They want to know that when we promise them something or take a stand or give our word that we mean it, and we will not back down, or betray them or desert them, or go back on our statements. If we change our vote, all the teams that have voted with us will feel betrayed. They will feel that our team is not trustworthy. This attitude will carry over into the game. They will remember our going back on our word, and it will mean real consequences all game long. On the other hand, we will gain nothing from the teams who want us to change. RB in particular will not appreciate us changing our vote, because they will not regard it as a favor to them. They will regard it as evidence that we are weak-minded and easily persuaded by them. They, and all the other teams will see it as a sign of weakness.

    4. Changing our Team vote will make me personally look foolish and weak and untrustworthy

    This may not mean anything to some of you, but I am saying it because it is the truth. I am biased, obviously, because all the things I said above will also be thought about me personally as the Spokesperson/Co-Captain. I am not happy about the prospect of having Spanish poly and WPC and the other teams that voted with us thinking of me as unreliable and unable to properly manage a team. And the sad truth is, as cavscout already pointed out, there is guilt by association. What they think about me will also influnce how they feel about the team. Some of you may be thinking "Well I think you're being an overbearing bully on the threads! I don't want to be thought of that way!" However, I would prefer, at least in this context to be viewed as a bully as opposed to a pushover. It's a fine line, I will admit to that.

    Here are the less important (but still important issues)

    1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage

    CSM banned is a "house rule" at RB. That is the standard way that they play their games. And they are good players. They are coming to "Our House" and trying to get us to play by their house rules. This is because they are experts at playing by their house rules. It is the way they always play.

    We would not be wise to let a guy come to our house to play cards and then when he says "dueces and one-eyed-Jacks are wild! That's my house rules" we say "Oh OK." That is not smart. Instead we should tell him "No! Over here we play straight-up! No wilds!" Now he will whine about how his way is "better, it adds more flavor to the game, it adds more skill and calculation with all the wildcards... he has played so many games like this and trust him its so much better... Our way is so simplistic it will just turn into everyone doing one thing, trying to get the high cards..." etc, etc, you get the point. But we would be fools to play his way, because its his way. He knows how best to play that way and he will take all our money if we just play his way.

    I remember somebody saying in our forum something like "I agree 100% with Lord Parkin on this CSM matter. My thoughts are the same as his!"

    I almost fell out of my seat reading that. Lord Parkin is highly intelligent, articulate, knowledgable and skilled at Civ 4. One thing he is not is objective. Lord Parkin is highly partisan and highly opinionated. He is for his team and nobody else, as he should be. I am the same. I am just as partisan and as biased as Lord Parkin. But I am on your team. He is on his team. The arguments that LP makes have one thing in mind, which is securing the best result for his team. He is very persuasive, but always remember that he wants team RB to win, not you. I want you to win, not team RB or anyone else. Don't let Lord Parkin (or anyone) persuade you to play by RB's house rules. They are not "better" they are just RB's house rules. They are only "better" for RB. That is why they argue so passionately about it.

    2. Changing our Team vote on a controversial issue without first making an official process sets a bad precedent that will hamstring our Team for the rest of the game

    cavscout can attest to this. This is how it goes. The Diplomat or turnplayer gets a sense of what the consensus is by reading the threads and keeping up with the day-to-day discussion. Then they post a letter, or gameplan saying "Ok guys this is what we're gonna say/do unless somebody has an objection." A few guys say "Sounds good" or something like that, but most people dont comment. Then the Diplomat goes to the other team and says our team agrees to XYZ thing or the tunrplayer picks Bronze Working as the next tech... Then, some guy who hasn't logged on in a while comes into the thread and says "Hey! I don't agree with that!" The turnplayer/diplomat says "That was already decided." so he says "Well the majority agrees with me I'm polling that issue!" Then he posts a poll and the thing he wanted wins. Then he demands that the tech is changed or the agreement is rescinded, whatever. But then the turnplayer/diplomat says "Your poll was unclear/unfair/unauthorized/unworthy somehow. Im posting a new poll!" or "We aren't obeying your poll!" So either way then the other choice (that the turnplayer/diplomat wants wins. Then the other guy starts accusing the turnplayer/diplomat of being a tyrant/dictator/no-good such and such, insults start flying around, you can imagine.

    What eventually happens is the team breaks up into factions, like political parties. The merits of a particular course of action no longer matter, and in fact are discussed less and less. Instead, its all about the polls and getting the most votes. I would prefer not to go this route again, because what it turns into, is that every single decision the team makes becomes like an election with campaigning, hard-feelings etc. There is no more consensus. Its just Faction 1 vs. Faction 2 on every issue, and who can sway the "independents." If our team is run like this all the substantive issues I raised earlier in this post will come up. Other teams will become frustrated with us because we take too long to decide things. Our Diplomats cant promise anything beacause they are always getting overturned by polls... etc etc.

    I will post another post later about the relative, substantive merits of Full Espy ON vs. banned CSM a bit later, but to anyone who read this post thanks:) I hope this is what you wanted tobiasn.
     
  12. tobiasn

    tobiasn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Norway
    Hey, nice!

    Yep. That's about as elaborate as I expected too. Thanks. This helps me, at least, to get the gist of it a little more.

    All valid arguments btw, and sound reasoning. On my phone atm so I wont elaborate anything, just happy you got my point and gave this kind of spirited answer.
     
  13. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    I dont think I said it was an absolute majority, only that it seemed to be a majority right now. I'm just curious how our team votes are decided..
     
  14. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Yer right, 'tis now past the point of changing. Kinda wish we'd had a proper discussion before said point though.
     
  15. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    @Sommer

    I know you've been one of the driving forces to start this new MTDG and its finally about to start. I figure thats why you were chosen to be the team captain aswell, but if I understand things correctly people started discussing settings before we had a private forum up, so I guess you didnt voice the team opinion but your own opinion. So if we are not allowed to change your prefered settings even though the team have a different opinion than you (because of your reasons), it seems weird to me.

    Onto your reasons, teams have changed opinion before, its not the end of the world..

    1. Do you think that the spanish team (and others?) changing their vote made them look disorganized and foolish?

    I think at least some teams will find we have finally come to our senses.. At least teams already think we are foolish. =P

    2. Do you think that the spanish team (and others?) changing their vote made them look weak/disunited?

    I think its a strength to be able to change opinion after a discussion. Else you're the grumpy guy who brushes his teeth with sugarwater because your mother told you thats the way it should be. (No offence meant if someones mother told someone something like that..)

    3. Do you think that the spanish team (and others?) changing their vote made them look unreliable and untrustworty? Do you think the spanish team are weak-minded?

    Who would find us unreliable and untrustworthy? I wasn't aware we have a deal with other teams to pick certain settings.. Do we? If we do I think the diplomacy of the game started a tad early.. This is just the settings discussion, and I don't think it will change anyones opinion of us as a team dramatically.

    4. Do you think that the spanish team captain is personally look foolish and weak?



    So the less important points.

    1. I havn't seen the CSM in use here very often, so I can't see how having CSM on would favor us. I think there is a greater risk the game will be ruined for people if we have CSM on instead of off, even if I don't think this game will be decided by this rule. But why take the risk?

    2. I have no experience with these examples, but I think your way handling things so far seems like at least as bad alternative.
     
  16. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The difference here is that Spanish Apolyton team has merely been in agreement with us. Their members have not been vehemently arguing for full espionage, getting into heated and personal disputes with people from other forums, or posting unlikely scenarios to justify their position. If they switched, it would be equivalent to a member of Parliament crossing the floor. But if we switched, it would be like the leader of the opposition crossing the floor.

    How would a legal espionage mission ruin the game for people? They would be fully aware of the existence of such a possibility (especially after such a heated debate). They would also be in a pretty poor situation to start with if getting your civics changed "ruins" the game for you. Nobody is going to be staying in Despotism/Babarism/Tribalism/Decentralization/Paganism just to CSM other teams into the crappy first civics (although admittedly, it would be pretty funny). Worst that happens in this case is that you get stuck in Police State rather than Universal Suffrage for a maximum of 5 turns. Big whoop. Build some units and attack whoever spied on you.

    And your complaining about the processes is simply unfair. The very first post on this forum was a thread started by Sommerswerd to discuss our position on in-game options. A preliminary sort of "team position" on these matters had been formed by the team members on the public forum. People that were opposed to various positions said so, and the matter was discussed, and in some cases, our vote was changed. Nobody voiced their opposition to our official team opinion of having espionage fully on. Thus the matter was not discussed. The poll has now been closed, and the votes were in favour of espionage fully on. The poll will almost certainly not be re-opened. If you detest CSM so much, you should have spoken up earlier. :dunno:
     
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,299
    Location:
    On the one spin
    OK Majic, here is my response to your post.

    The first thing you said does not make sense to me. You said that I expressed my own opinion because people started discussing the settings before we had a private forum. That statement does not make sense. There is no reason that one would cause ther other.

    If what you mean is I missed all the discussion that happened before the private forum was up then you are wrong. Not only was I present for all of the discussion, in fact I have read each and every single post written by each and every single person in all 40 pages of the Planning Thread, multiple times. I am well aware of what the consensus was on issues when I posted the suggested team votes. Not to mention the fact that I read each and every single post in the planning of the last MTDG.

    I mention that because in planning the last MTDG that was played with 5 CFC teams and a CDZ forums team, we had this exact same argument, and it was just as controversial and just as hostile, with all the same accusations and all the exact same arguments and points made by both sides. I read every single post. The result of that argument was that Full espionage won, as in a majority of the CFC players on the CFC teams voted to have CSM allowed. Based on that alone, we can start with a strong presumption that the majority of CFC players prefer to have CSM allowed.

    After the private forum was formed I posted all the settings votes and asked for objections, feedback etc. No one objected to the CSM setting vote. Members stated that they were fine with the settings, or that they wanted something changed that was not the CSM setting, and members also said that they like Polys votes, which at the time were "Prefer full espy, CSM off is OK." That was a perfectly legitimate basis to keep our team vote for full espy ON. Your statement that I was just putting "my opinion" is flat out wrong. The vote on CSM was supported not just by the team feedback but by the historical position of CFC at large. The first objections only occured after the votes were announced by me as final. So again, your attempt to characterize the settings votes as "my preferences" is unfair, and wrong.

    Now onto your specific points:

    First off I have to point out that nowhere do you even attempt to refute any of the 4 points I said are the most important, practical ones. Alll you seem to do is ask me a question, the same question over and over again in response to all four points. This is an interesting rhetorical device, but it is not a substantive argument in any way, and therefore I dont think your responses have any merit whatsoever. However I will respond to them anyway because I like arguing.

    Onto your reasons, your statement "teams have changed opinion before, its not the end of the world" belies two things. First, it is an extreme form of hyperbole bordering on meaningless rhetoric. Obviously changing our vote will not cause the entire planet to explode. Why even say that? The statement has no meaning or purpose. If your point is "Changing our vote is not important" then if it is not important, you should not be arguing about it and making accusations against me over it. Either you are being misleading, because it is important to you, which means you will mislead just to try win an argument or make others look bad... or you are telling the truth, it is not important to you, and you are making accusations and going through all this over something that is not important to you. I would like to know if you are going through all of this for something that you do not consider important.

    Second, it shows that you fundamentally do not understand or care about the long term consequences this will have on the team. This makes sense, because you have posted more on this one issue then the entire 2 years you were on Team AMAZON. If you follow the precedent that you set in previous games, you will be long gone in about a month or so, so really what do you care? No big deal.

    Now with your non-response questions, you are trying to bait me into sliming another player, which I won't do, however, I am curious... If simply respond "Yes" to all four of your questions what would you say? Also, as a side point, Spanish poly changed their vote in response to an Admin request to do so to resolve the settings dispute. Us changing votes would be un-solicited by the admin and indeed against his expressed wishes. And it would not resolve anything, it would just reopen the debate. So you can't compare those two in any reasonable way.

    1. When Spanish Poly announced they were changing their vote, the very first response was nabaxo posting a ROTFL smiley mocking them. I think this gives you a pretty candid portrait of exactly how the other teams respond to vote-changing.

    And as far as other teams already thinking we are foolish goes... RB has demonstrated that they will call anyone foolish who disagrees with them. But changing our vote wont make them think we are now smart. It will make them think we are weak and foolish and fractured.

    2. As far as your advice about the sugar tooth brush goes... it is meaningless rhetoric and here's why. I could say exactly the same to you. Change your opinion to match mine now that we have discussed it. But you wont change your opinion, and you wont consider yourself weak-minded for failing to change your opinon, so your illustration is meaningless, because it wont even stand up to self scrutiny.

    3. I already answerd this question, but I will answer again to be thourough. The other teams who voted for full Espy will regard us as unreliable and untrustworthy. Realize that other teams are having the same argument we are. If we show up and switch votes it will alienate all those players who are arguing the same thing I am. And you wont even gain the love of the players who want CSM banned, as they will just regard it as wealk.

    And You don't need to have an agreement. If you and I go to a game to watch the local team play and we both have on the shirts and colors of that team, but then in the critical moment I start cheering for the opposition team to win and the opposition team does win then you will see me as a traitor. We had no contract. We never spoke, but you will think me a traitor anyway because I gave the impression that I was with you and then betrayed you. I have seen men stabbed and attacked at games for this. And the fans of the opposition will not respect you either. They will not say "Oh he came to his senses." They will say "What a turn-coat, fair weather fan he is, who turns on his team when they lose or when they need his cheers the most." Everyone in the stadium resents you, you are friendless. We dont want to be friendless in this game. If RB hates us over this, let them, they are in the minority 5-4.

    4. I will not respond to you attempting to bait me into a needless personal attack

    Ironically, you gave actual responses to the less important points, which proves little, since you couldnt refute any of the important ones.

    You begin by admitting 2 important things. First, you admit that you don't really know what you're talking about, because this whole argument is about CSM and you just admitted you have little active knowledge of the effect of CSM on a game. So you should not be arguing so fiercely in favor of something that you have no knowledge of. Many of the RB players do the same thing as you, BTW, persuaded by the force of LPs arguments alone and no personal experience, to take hard line stances against CSM.

    Second, you have just demonstrated the point I made earlier that you wont be around much so what really do you care about this? You were on team AMAZON. We used CSM extensively, albeit against a team with no chance of winning, so it cant be said that we won the game because of it, but use it we did. The fact that you as a member of AMAZON say that you are not familiar with CSM shows so clearly what kind of team member you will be... the absent kind.

    As I said, we used CSM extensively in the last MTDG, in fact we crushed a Team with it. Now the team we crushed was going to lose anyway, and we arguable could have done it faster by focusing on tech or units instead of espy but that is a seperate issue. The point is, they never raised a peep about it. No quitting no moans and groans about "unfair, unbalanced" and such not even after the game. I have not yet heard a Merlot or Mavs player once complain that AMAZON using CSM so much broke the game. The game did not collapse. Merlot's turnplayer fought to the very last blade of grass, and the game continued to the Spaceship.

    Again, you say you have no knowledge or experience, so you should not be making arguments that are manifestly based on lack of experience. You are then admittedly basing your arguments on pure gut instrinct that we should play by RB's house rules. You say why risk it? I say based on actual experience using CSM extensively that there is no risk. All RB's protestations are just propaganda designed to scare everyone into playing by their house rules. Period.
     
  18. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    Well, it seems like the majority of the team wants espionage on, so there is no need to discuss this anymore.

    My main points were,
    1. I didn't like the way you handled the discussion when it seemed like majority was against you.
    2. If you dont think the spanish team seems weak/disorganized/foolish/disunited/unthrustworthy/unreliable after changing vote, what makes you think other teams would think that about us? I don't think the people here differ much from people in other teams, we are all humans. I think Nabaxos answer to them changing vote was more a sudden frustration than an expression of eternal hostility between the teams. Also if you answer yes to all my questions, you are saying we wouldn't want any agreements with the spaniards, because they cant be trusted.
    3. This is just the game setting discussion, opinions/votes here shouldn't affect the diplomacy ingame. Or are we already picking preferable teams to ally?
    4. You are right I am mostly lurking, I'm not sure why I joined in on this discussion, maybe because when I agree with team consensus I don't feel a need to write anything, or if it is a hopeless case. In this case I noticed some people had the same opinion as me so I guess I wanted to see how things turned out if a majority was in the same opinion as me.
    5. I didn't list the pro/cons of CSM on/off because it has been done before and everyone knows about them.

    Also about my abcense in AMAZON, I probably read all posts there, I thought it was interesting. But we were on the larger better teched alliance, so we didn't use CSM very much (IIRC) because we had better civics than Merlot. We mostly used a starving/strike tactic, no?

    Anyway, I'm not nearly as experienced as you at discussing things on forums and I feel a bit like I'm not able to present my points in english as good as I want, so I probably wont discuss this much more. The team seem to agree with with the standing vote, so I'm happy. =) Onwards..
     
  19. vranasm

    vranasm Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Messages:
    6,437
    Location:
    Czech Rep.
    not sure why CSM invokes so much religious warfare... would be better to have spiritual leader though ;-)

    I would have to check some things regarding CSM though, I very vaguely remember some people claiming that you can't hold AI in perpetual anarchy through CSM to avoid AI landing culture.

    since almost no one is Spiritual yet, the implication of CSM is maybe a bit less dangerous.

    Btw when we're at it... changing religion of civilization is regarded as CSM too?
     
  20. Majic

    Majic Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Boden, Sweden
    Yeah, atleast I've assumed that.
     

Share This Page