Game Settings Discussion Thread

[Sommerswerd]

[]He can't figure it out, that's why he is "graciously" giving evil diabolical Sommers the benefit of the doubt, even though he doesn't think I deserve it, by "assuming it was just a coincidence"[/]

Pretty funny though

 

[tobiasn]

I agree.

I can do that not stepping on anyones toes

I do think however, that we should bring a revision or clarification of 2d to the table.

Ruff says

(2) d) is an attempt to give the team attacking another team that is receiving unit support from a 3rd team a chance to attack those units during their portion of the turn set.

So basically it's just to make sure that a party in a war playing last don't suddenly has a zillion units AFTER the other party in war has played his (first) half. Right?

The proposal isn't bad, it's just that is has some bad side effects, like noted in the public thread. I see the rationale behind the rule, I just wish we could come up with a cure with less side effects.

So if I could say something along these lines in the two threads in question:

- We're OK with ruff's proposal

- We're OK with the idea behind 2d - that you can't get around being attacked by your war adversary by being gifted units after your opponent has played his turn. And you can't gift units to avoid them getting killed. But apart from that, unit gifting is generally fine, from anyone to anyone at any time.

- We're obviously OK with our own proposal but as ruff and co made a fine effort to consolidate the rules that we all pretty much agree on, let's just roll with that one.

- We're OK with the game starting without a consensus on ruff's part 3. We want the game to be fair and not a clock-game, but we're kinda adamant on the stance that we shouldn't have rules that nerfs specific tactics, and we want rules that can be enforced.

 

[tobiasn]

I think if we did that, we would be accused of being underhanded or something along those lines and it would just start an argument. Let them finish all of the non-controversial BS that no one cares about so they can hurry up and post the controversial part so we can vote.

I don't think so - I think right now we could gain a lot by getting all the teams to back one un-controversial ruleset. I think the other teams expect some kind of "official" reaction from us to move forward too, seeing as our team has been kinda active on this front

I see no harm in supporting ruff's efforts so far, with the points I elaborated on, and clearing the ground for just discussing the controversial rule(s).

 

[YossarianLives]

What do people think about this revision of 2d:

"Units may only be gifted to a team that is at war during that team's portion of the turn. A team that is at war may not gift units to another team that is not at war."

I think that should cover the issues that are of concern, but maybe I am missing something...

 

[tobiasn]

"Units may only be gifted to a team that is at war during that team's portion of the turn"

A and B is at war. B is supported by C. A has first turn.

A wants to attack the units that B has available for that turn.
A attacks and finishes.
B starts. B gets SoD from C. A cannot attack this new stack.

I think it's this sceanrio that ruff and co wants to avoid. But I have no idea how to do that without getting into trouble.

 

[Sommerswerd]

EDIT: NVM I see that has already been addressed

 

[tobiasn]

We've talked about calming things down in the main forum for days, can we please keep the aggro level down? The bickering that is going on in the main settings thread now does not in any way represent this teams effort to keep a civil tone. I'd appreciate if that was made clear.

 

[2metraninja]

I am cool with whatever common sense rules we adopt, but saying "we had good rules, I dont see why you just dont accept them" from a proven cheater and rule breaker, who is not organizing this game and will be gone from it not much long after it starts (seen in the 2 previous MTDGs), well this is not something I can willingly accept.

 

[tobiasn]

I understand that you are pissed off, but can't you just rise above it in the main forum? It just creates a real bad atmosphere. When I re-read your posts, I see that you're making a really good point, but in that last paragraph of your first rebuttal, you kind of lose it a little. And then it escalates.

This is beyond right or wrong now, you made your point several times. The way to win this debate is being the bigger man about it, and just ignore the stuff that piss you off.

Just enter /ignore mode on the backhand accusations. We all see them. It's fairly obvious that RB also is a mixed bag of peeps that is not all "against us" or anything. It would be sad to alienate the whole team just because of an old beef with some random dude.

I draw this from 17 years experience of wasting time being right on the internet

 

[2metraninja]

I draw this from 17 years experience of wasting time being right on the internet

HAHAHAhhh... really good one.

I know it is not worth and I know what is the right thing to do, I just cant help myself every time I am human and nothing human is not alien to me (If this sentence makes any sense translated directly in English.)

I am sad too that RB is represented by such a persons, who are not at all worthy to be representing the RB values. I know few really good players from there and they are not posted even 1 single post.

 

[talonschild]

I know, mate, but you have an unfortunate tendency of making the first inflammatory post. Twice recently, so far. Just - take it easy out there, okay?

 

[cav scout]

I'm almost wondering if RB is baiting us into an inflammatory exchange of posts to put the focus on CFC instead of them. They know they are generally considered the most dangerous team both on reputation of players and their excellent picks. So anything that deflects attention away from them and colors another team as the villains benefits them.

 

[Aivoturso]

I am sad too that RB is represented by such a persons, who are not at all worthy to be representing the RB values. I know few really good players from there and they are not posted even 1 single post.

I am not surprised at all that decent folks give the thread a wide breadth

 

[Sommerswerd]

Remember, show unity in public... very important to project strength to the other Teams. We can disagree and chastise each other all we want in private, but we gain nothing by critisizing each other publicly.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have to separate the ball from the man (and I will explain that later too).

I understand this completely. When you have a ball (or squeaky toy, or piece of rope, or meat or bone or anything the dog wants) he will chase you, knock you down, paw, scratch, even bite or maul you to get it. But if you just throw it away, he will chase the ball and forget about you. Because its not about you. You are just an obstacle in the way of what he is after... Very approprite to our current situation.

For the preamble, my personal goal is to play the entire game without any team making a rules violation claim.

Wow Dave! This is a really good preamble...

The goal of this game is to play from beginning to end without a single instance of anyone publicly accusing, or even implying that any team or any member of any team has broken any rules or done anything unfair, dishonest or exploitative.

 

[tobiasn]

Remember, show unity in public...

This goes for all of us. When we have used post after post, also in our own forum, trying to get people to calm down, then not being able to do so not only reflects badly on the whole team. It also makes the rest of us look kinda stupid. And it shows no unity.

So, I was happy that vranasm made the post that he did - and that 2metra made it clear that he was debating on his own accord. If that's what you're referring to, Sommers.

Sommers and 2metra, you guys are the percieved and de facto team captains. You should lead by example in the main threads. Stop the bickering cold, please. It's beneath you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I appreciate you bringing the conversation in here. Thanks

My goals at this particular time are:
1. Get the game started (without any nerfs on 2nd move, if possible, if not whatevers)
2. Personally avoid anymore public confrontations (for now, as they don't have any strategic value ATM)
3. Defend my friends, and teammates

Not being able to "get people to calm down" only "reflects badly on our team" when you do it in public. Do it in private and you won't have to worry about it reflecting on us because no one but us will know about it.

And I'm not going to tell my teammates to refrain from defending themselves when they are being attacked. I have personally chosen to do so ONLY because I think it benefits us strategically for me to be quiet in the public forum. My feeling is, if you are going to tell someone publicly to pipe down, tell the people on other teams publicly and tell your teammates privately.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think a little too much hair is being pulled out over this concept that we have to make nice in the planning stages or we will be hated in the game. This has been proven false over and over. The most bitter enemies in the planning of the last game ended up up as the very first (and strongest) allies in game. Meanwhile the former teammates tore each other to shreds.

Where is all this ginger-stepping around the feelings of other Teams (RB in particular) coming from? Does it have something to do with several on this team having longstanding familiarity with the RB players/forum? This is a serious question. I am genuinely curious about this. Why are we so concerned about offending RB? (This is a completely irrelevant, philisophical and unimportant side-question BTW, so don't put too much thought into it)

And anyway, I could be wrong, I have been wrong before. Maybe there is some strategic value to kissing @ss in the planning stage. I am certainly open to hear any thoughts folks have on this.

 

[Aivoturso]

It is not a black and white selection between being douchebags or brownnosers. There is an awful lot of middle ground in between. It is actually possible to politely to disagree, even on the Internet. When you are attacked personally, you can just point out that the attack was hurtful and uncalled for. I know it can at times be hard to be civil when other people are not, but more often than not, I've seen that approach pay bigger dividends than dishing it out as good as you're receiving. That does not make you a loser, wimp or a brownnoser. People will not look down on you if you can keep your cool and act politely even when under a verbal assault.

Now onto how I believe this can have an impact on us. This time it is not only people from CFC who are playing. It is not only CFC and RB people either. It is a whopping nine teams that have gathered to play an epic game of Civilization IV. The game we love. Now that the leader picks are over and the map is ready, only thing that is holding up the game is agreeing on the ruleset. Unfortunately the discussion has already been derailed several times by flame wars mostly between us and RB (with Apolyton members pitching in once in a while). Now, how do you think other six teams feel about this. I believe that most of them are just annoyed that the game is being delayed by such petty squabbling. This can definitely have negative diplomatic impact. We don't have much history with the many teams in the play and the first impression we've been giving may not lead them to actively seek an alliance with us. In worst case the hurtful atmosphere and incessant flaming in the public forum can lead to a team quitting the game leaving us and RB arguing endlessly whose fault it was that the game fell apart.

 

[tobiasn]

I seriously didn't know about RB until I joined this team.

I just think it's childish behavior and that it serves no purpose. You can defend yourself just fine without attacking the person and/or questioning their motives. Even though (actually, especially when) they are doing so. That's not "ginger stepping", it's common sense.

It also makes you win the argument quicker. Especially when the argument is won when the silent, reading, majority votes.

So when I call for people to calm down, it's not to comfort the feelings of poor RB, nor about kissing anyone's @ss, it's because it makes most sense, and serves our purpose best.

But yeah, this:

Maybe there is some strategic value to kissing @ss in the planning stage

Might be akin to the proveb "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"?

You think it has no effect on diplo that team reps from RB and CFC has been fighting and bickering before the game even starts? Well let's hope you're right.