General rules for All IOT Games

[CivOasis]

Hello. Good to see progress being made on uh... a constitution. Interesting.

Anyway, concerning the "No OOC in Game Thread" thing, perhaps you guys would be interested in a WWW thread like in the NESing thread for semi-related IOT discussions, as well as taking OOC discussions "outside" so to speak.

I approve of this. We sort of have the "Where is Argentina" thread for this, or, at least, that's what it was doing last I was aware.

 

[Sonereal]

That was what the "Where is Argentina?" Thread was for.

Otherwise, I agree with what has been put forward so far, except Rule #1 CivO has. That should just be scrapped altogether or be opt-in. I like getting questions about mechanics mid-game.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sometimes a NES will have an OOC thread for non game chatter about a particular game. such threads do help keep the game thread cleaner.

I will break this discussion into a new thread and sticky it so those not here now can see that it his being held. Please hold off posting for a few minutes until you see the ne thread.

 

[Terrance888]

EDIT: Possible amendment to #1, and which I use in my NES. A rule may be question in its effectiveness/use ONLY if (insert arbitrary number/faction here) amount of players sign a petition (and offer their own reasons to sign it) about a certain rule/result. Major times where this came to effect in my nes: Cannibalism, extreme pyro-maniac actions, overpowering "Hordlings" in horde-state conflicts, and the unclear use of upkeep and logistics.

Reposted to stay relevant. Good luck on your endeavor!

 

[CivOasis]

Well, if it's opt-in, I'd just remove it entirely. Nothing on this list should be opt-in; I want it to be universally applicable to all IOTs.

 

[Sonereal]

Reposted to stay relevant. Good luck on your endeavor!

That reads like a good idea, but like CivO said, if it is just "opt-in", then it might be for nought. The reason I like not having the rule at all is because, usually, I get a smart player who finds a flaw in my ruleset or has an idea and I usually act on it from there.

If anything, rule #1 should probably just be a "any rule" variation in which you can decide to go my way, your way, or CivO's way.

 

[Red_Spy]

I approve of the draft so far. Hopefully we can all come into an agreement.

 

[CivOasis]

Spoiler :

Draft Rules regarding GMs and IOT mod [BIRDJAGUAR]:

IOT Meta Rules:
1. The GM cannot keep a member from joining a game unless the OP has a clear statement that the game will have a limit to the number of players and the request to join will put the player count over that stated limit.
2. A GM cannot remove a player from a game without first consulting the IOT mod, or if he is not around, another moderator or administrator.
3. The GM cannot encourage players to “dog pile” a player in order to force him out of the game.
4. The GM can set and enforce specific standards regarding nations and IC play, but those standards should be fully explained in the games rules section where everyone can read them. All players must held to the same standards
5. The IOT moderator will not interfere with game play except to enforce the forum rules. If in enforcing those rules, the moderator feels it is important to edit the game related content of a player’s post, he will first consult the GM.
6. Upon request from a GM, the IOT mod will be available to “encourage” problem players to change their habits and to hear all arguments from a GM that request a players removal from a game.

Sounds good, but I think we need to create some player etiquette rules, as well. Here is my proposal for additions:

Spoiler :

Draft Rules regarding players [CIVOASIS]:

Etiquette Rules:
1. Any players which put a rule in contention after game start must present a petition with a definite proposal for their change to the GM. [TERRANCE888 AMENDMENT]
2. Upon joining a game, a player agrees to abide by all rules of the game, both mechanical and in terms of etiquette.
3. OOC interactions between players are forbidden in-thread.
4. All CFC general forum rules must be observed.
5. OOC interactions between players that occur may not reference another player.
5A. Exceptions to the above occur when a player percieves another player or the GM to be in opposition to the rules of the IOT forum or of the game, and only occurs with the CFC moderators.

And, since it was mentioned, RFC's suggestion, even if it is above BirdJag's level.

Spoiler :

Draft Rules regarding forum management [BESTRFCPLAYER]:

Management Rules:
1. One poster, elected by the subforum and approved by the CFC staff, shall serve rotating terms as a subforum moderator.

Re-posted with amendment.

 

[BSmith1068]

I am.in agreement.

 

[Sonereal]

I still disagree with CivO's first rule entirely. Otherwise, acceptable.

 

[Tyo]

Agreed with above.

 

[CivOasis]

I suspect majority opinion will call for it to be dropped; at the moment, I'm still waiting for responses.

 

[GenMarshall]

Sometimes a NES will have an OOC thread for non game chatter about a particular game. such threads do help keep the game thread cleaner.

I have a genuine concern about this. Is there going to be provisions to prevent metagaming within the OOC non-game chatter thread. I've routinely seen screenshots from chat logs in many of Tani's games and use it as a justification for IC actions when the chat themselves are usually OOC.

 

[Sonereal]

Anything posted in the OOC thread should be counted as OOC period. The GM, feeling that something from the OOC thread is being used for IC, should probably ask a neutral observer to see what they think and, if it seems not legit, the GM should the player to refrain from whatever they're doing.

Likewise, the moderator could do the same thing. OOC should be strictly OOC.

 

[CivOasis]

And expanding upon the above, OOC should not mix with IC. Hence my provision to bar OOC from a game thread proper.

 

[Lighthearter]

Agreed with Sone. CivO's Amendment 1 is a bad idea, and I don't think the GM should edit out ACTIONS at all, under and circumstances. Just let the players know they need to change them themselves.

And I support an amendment banning the use of chatscreens as evidence for IC actions.

-L

 

[Red_Spy]

I vote against that amendment. We still have the chat which the mods can not control whatsoever, and nothing is stopping the players from PMing and just preparing for whatever the chatscreen said.

 

[Mosher]

I very much so support the local election of an IOT mod. I feel that this would solve many of our issues with a friendly face in charge.

 

[Sonereal]

I would just make it so you can't post screencaps in the threads unless there is some kind of event/diplomacy taking place in the chat with the GM present.

I would add another rule.

If a player feels that another player is breaking the rules/metagaming, s/he should PM the GM first, not take it to OOC. That way, we don't get !!fun!! in the threads.

 

[CivOasis]

Alright, the clause for rule discussions has been removed. Awaiting the consensus on screenshots, and I'm going to add Sone's right now - I don't think we'll see much dissent on that matter.