General rules for All IOT Games

[Ailedhoo]

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.

But as Luckymoose stated this will effect quality in a bad way and ensure the GM lacks the power. After all the general first law of IOT is that the GM is a god.

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.

Again though: the problem Luckymoose pointed out.

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.

But what if the CFC mod's interpitation of the game differs from the GM's?

1. Upon joining a game, a player agrees to abide by all rules of the game, both mechanical and in terms of etiquette.

I do not think binding a IOT in legal agreements will benefit the games. After all: does one not observe the rules for joining anyway? It may also hinder any efforts by the GM to change the rule set in mid game if they feel there is a "legel protection" of the rule set.

2. OOC interactions between players are forbidden in-thread.

While I know first hand how OOC can prove problematic for plays, a full on ban is no justice. The occational OOC comment is fine. The issue is excesses.

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

There be elections but the choice belongs not to the electorate. Forgive but you either elect or apoint. Both at the same time is... of issue.

On one hand, there are those who wish to leave CFC. While this is, technically, possible, those of you who observe this action must realise that not everyone will follow, decreasing player base. Assuming you manage to draw in new players from elsewhere, the culture and varieties of IOT will change dramatically. Honestly, if you see IOT as "dying" or "losing quality/community/values", all that this course of action will result in is an acceleration of the above.

The reason why I see the benfit of making a speical IOT site is for puprose that we thrive. We are not "dying" but we are likely to stagnate if we limit our will to CFC. It is hence important to have a site where the GMs may have their own limits.

It will also benefit the community and make it easier for new players to come about. Tani's IOT site may make a good start. Let us at least attempt to make a few IOT games there first before coming to "it will not happen" conclustion. We cannot develop IOT unless we experiment.

 

[Terrance888]

Maybe this attempt to export a geopolitical forum game community would succeed. Us NESers tried 3 times and failed every. Single. Time.

Third... err... fourth time's the charm?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Maybe this attempt to export a geopolitical forum game community would succeed. Us NESers tried 3 times and failed every. Single. Time.

Third... err... fourth time's the charm?

I have come across people that are intrested in trying a IOT game. I feel that, with proper spreading of the word, we could attarct many new IOTers. However I feel this is best served by a IOT forum. It would allow the GMs to decide among themselves a rule, allowing for a more organic feel of structure.

 

[Terrance888]

Perhaps. If you succeed, literally, more power to you. I also happen to agree that, from various rulesets, games (quite some time ago) and discussions that IOT GM's are more indeed independent than NESing Mods.

Spoiler :

The fact that I also believe that IOT GM's need this independence to survive in the subforum while developed codes of conduct serves to self-regulate NESers is not relevant but interesting. This is mostly due to types of games and maturity of the communities.

If the average IOT has 20 players-ish, you need a population of 30 players to have a strong vibrant community with multiple games and some breathing room. The average NES was about 12-15 back then, so we needed around 20 players for a strong colonial community. The most we ever got I believe as only 17 or so.

EDIT: A forum as in a separate FORUM, as in, not CFC hosted. Or a separate subforum like NESing currently enjoys?

 

[Ailedhoo]

EDIT: A forum as in a separate FORUM, as in, not CFC hosted. Or a separate subforum like NESing currently enjoys?

The seperate subforum thing might have intresting results. However my thought be on a separate forum to serve as a IOT forum migth ensure the safe guard of the GMs' powers. Tani had set a forum which while had issues can be improved via reformation.

Overall all I wish to see more experimentation. I feel we should trial out and not be of experimentation. Let there be at least attempts to set some IOT games to be hosted on the seperate IOT forum that exists. If we conduct a serious attempt we could end up with more recruits.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Wow...I didn't see this page until now. Good job guys. That PM to BirdJag was probably not needed now.

Although, I also disagree that OCC chatter should be banned entirely.

And I really don't think a majority of people think it is a good idea to move offsite.

EDIT: And can we safely say that the "strike" is over now?

 

[Ailedhoo]

And I really don't think a majority of people think it is a good idea to move offsite.

It is about experimentation. Have you done a survey or something? We should consider experimenting, at least to spread the word of IOT. The IOT forum idea is of enshrining the power of the GM.

Anyrate we need to messure the action itself. We should trial at least or else we will just deny ourselves a offering chance of a trying new things for IOT.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I dont mind the Chat conversations posted in my game (if they have any true value), because it adds a spying aspect to the game which is fun, but it can get out of hand sometimes.

 

[JohannaK]

Tani tried to move the community to his forum. I think that "complete failure" is a description accurate enough of the result.

 

[CivOasis]

There have been attempts to move offsite before, an they have all failed miserably.

Regardless, this thread is to discuss the creation of an IOT constitution - the rationale is a holdover from the original post, so we can all see how this came about.

 

[Sonereal]

Being unable to ban members from joining your game is the reason your quality is low. You should be able to keep the below average people out if it threatens the overall fun of an IOT. In a NES, I'd keep people like christos out just because they lack any idea of what roleplay or seriousness is.

Apparently we can't do that.

 

[AluminumKnight]

I am new to this forum, but I think my experience in forum-based RPGs justifies my opinion (I'm sure some of you are familiar with these as well).

What I see from my brief time is a struggle here to maintain player base QUANTITY and player QUALITY at the same time.

One thing that I don't believe we can afford to do is weaken the GM position. This will, in my opinion, lead to resentment, frustration, and ultimately, some of the best and most active players leaving. The GM is God, and if you don't like it, start your own IOT! This is NOT to say the GM doesn't have to follow normal forum rules.

Normally what I've seen in succesful RPG forums is like a naturally tiered system:

Experienced or RP heavy players will create more complicated or RP-heavy games. In the opening post the GM will lay out requirements, and most will require approval of sign-up posts, and/or excerpts of the player's posts in past games. If your backstory isn't good enough, either revise it, revamp it, or join a different game. The GM will also lay out requirements for regular posts (i.e. 3 sentence minimum, absolutely NO OOC discussion in the in-game thread, etc.). It must be made clear that IF these rules are not followed (interpretation of the GM is law), the GM reserves the right to kick players out. If the GM does not do things like this, they have no reason to complain about poor quality.

The key thing for these people to keep in mind, however, is that without developing new players, the forum will eventually die. A lot of times the experienced players will create games specifically for new players in order to do just this.

Newer players or players who don't care much to RP (or don't have time, etc.) will create lighter or simply non-RP games. These might even be some of the players that tried to join the heavier games but realized they were in over their heads.

The key thing for these people to keep in mind is that getting rejected from an advanced IOT is NOT discrimination, unfair, etc. It means one of two things: 1. That kind of IOT is not for you, because you don't enjoy RP, you don't have time for long drawn-out posts, you're 12 years old and not that good at writing, or whatever the case may be. Or 2. You simply need to put a little more time and/or effort into making quality backstories and posts.

EDIT: Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to add one more thing: There should be a real sense of community here, even from the most experienced and serious players to the newbies and 12-year-olds that only want to play USSR. You can't afford think of new players as bringing quality down, but rather adding to the forum activity, which is ALWAYS needed

 

[Patchy]

Wow he called people who want to play casual games 12 year olds. He's worse than Sone.

 

[Sonereal]

It is weird, but this is where reading comprehension comes into play. Please quote the part where he said people who want to play casual games are just twelve year olds. Or maybe you missed the rest of the sentence? It does seem to be a reoccurring problem with your kind.

If you're going to put words in someone's mouth, try to make the ones coming out of yours relevant.

 

[AluminumKnight]

Wow he called people who want to play casual games 12 year olds. He's worse than Sone.

I'm sorry if it came off that way, it was not my intention to imply this. My point was actually that it's fine to be a 12-year-old and participate in this forum. That was one of the scenarios I gave as examples for why you might not want to play in the games requiring heavy RP or complicated rules, the others being that you simply don't enjoy RP or don't want to spend a long time playing the game.

I hope this is more clear; I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

 

[Sonereal]

I agree with your post by the way. I believe that the proposed rules, which ask for a more rigid clarification of what is being looked for in a game, will help alleviate the problem of a player who expected a casual game to accidentally walk into a worldbuilder heavy exercise.

 

[Lighthearter]

Just stick in the OP a number. 1-5, from silly to serious.

 

[Sonereal]

Don't think we need a number for it. Especially since the numbers are arbitrary.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I consider it possible to play a silly nation seriously, myself.

I can be the Equestrian Empire and seriously base my foreign policy off tolerance, peace, etc.

 

[AluminumKnight]

I consider it possible to play a silly nation seriously, myself.

I can be the Equestrian Empire and seriously base my foreign policy off tolerance, peace, etc.

Something like this should be resolved quite easily. The GM requires you to post a sign-up with some information. Either he/she approves it or not. If you knew you were signing up for a more serious game, you do not have any reason to expect the Equestrian Empire to be allowed. If you didn't know that, now you do, so find another game or create your own.