General rules for All IOT Games

[Ailedhoo]

I'd suggest Thorvald of Lym. He's a fairly respected GM and player, is quick to speak out when games degenerate into fisticuffs, and has a sense of community obligation.

I too support Thor. He is just in will and experienced in IOT matters.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

I suggest civoasis, he didn't show bias with our recent altercation and has a solid concept of IOT games.

 

[Sonereal]

I vote Thor!

 

[Lighthearter]

I vote Tani. He's intelligent, understands the IOT community, and is the best DERN GM there is.

EDIT: And if anyone nominates me, you will burn forever.

-L

 

[Robert Can't]

When it comes to IC and OOC I agree with the crowd Thor's got to be the one.

He hasn't put himself forward yet though...

 

[JohannaK]

I support CivOasis.

 

[CivOasis]

I appreciate those who nominated myself, and would be more than willing to help out.

As for my own nominations, I believe both Tyo and HopliteJoe would be valuable sources of information.

That being said, I'm not certain how BirdJag or the community feels, but perhaps it would be best if this advisor does not advise for games they are playing in or GMing? I'm not certain if that is too restrictive, or defeats the purpose as far as those games are concerned, but it seems like it would reduce potential bias accusations in any matters.

 

[CivOasis]

I just read over BirdJag's posting of the rules, and noticed that one phrasing change in particular that may be of note -
In the list now stickied atop the page, OOC comments in a game thread must be marked, while in the list in this OP, OOC comments in a game thread are forbidden.

I'm not particularly opposed to either matter, and BirdJag's probably allows for more freedom, but I suspect I will likely ban OOC in any future game threads I post, as my original intent with that proposal was to cut down on possible conflicts "snowballing". Granted, that's not likely to be effective, but I did say "cut down on", not "eliminate"

 

[Lighthearter]

OOC has to still be allowed. Sorry, but denying it is just a complete dick move.

But GMs need the right to ban if people ignore them. As I've said in the past, I'm certainly not running to moddy to solve my problems in a game.

-L

 

[Birdjaguar]

As I see it, a GM could "ban" OOC comments from a game thread as part of their rules, but some GMs may not want to.I think leaving it open for GMs to decide is a better path.

That said, I will change my stickied post to reflect any consensus here.

 

[CivOasis]

Fair enough, which is why I didn't have issue with it, I just wanted to make it known.

At some point, I'll copy the "official" version into this OP.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

While I see many of you may support thor, I think CivO has been the most proactive in finding solutions for the disputes going on. He even made a makeshift constitution for our little sub forum.

Why don't we actually work with the moderator?

I agree with him here, and I think he can do a great job as a helper to BJ.

 

[Tani Coyote]

@ Lighthearter:

I'm flattered, but I'm a bit too lenient on when individuals slip up. I normally prefer to let players sort it out than have to file any paperwork, so I don't think I'd be apt for any assisting position.

Thorvald is near-universally seen as the most trustworthy and professional GMs, and the same as a player and as a person. His judgment is pretty much always fair.

In the games I have GMed, he has often been the first to bring it to my attention when the game has gone to hell in a handbasket and devolved into personal insults and just general rudeness, rather than the acceptable level of competition.

Thorvald's main drawback is that he seems to be a fairly busy fellow, so I'm not sure how well he'd be able to perform in any such duties.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Lighthearter for President.

No, seriously, I Vote: Thorvald of Lym

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think we need a stated rule about using DLs (double logins) so you can play two nations in a single game or avoid a ban. They will get you banned for a week or more.

 

[CivOasis]

Is that not part of the CFC rules?

EDIT:
Not that I care if we specify again, but I thought it was already essentially in there.

 

[Sonereal]

Aren't sockpuppets already a bannable offense on this board? Circumventing a ban, which has to be approved by a moderator, is circumventing a moderator action with a sockpuppet, which sounds like it would already be against the rules.

So would creating a sockpuppet to double-play in a game, since creating accounts to support your argument in any part of the board seems like it would be against the rules already as well.

Edit

And no, a sockpuppet should lead to a much harsher punishment than just one week.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I recall the forum rules saying that our accounts for ourselves only, and that just as it is forbidden to post on someone else's behalf, it is forbidden to have another account. I recall this ban on DLs is also the reason why the rules state to PM an administrator if one desires a name change.

Logically multiple nations with one account is fine provided every player is able to do so according to a game's rules. Of course, no game has legalised this except for GMs, so it's irrelevant in that case.

I do concur that DLs should be harshly punished. They're against not just the forum rules, but the spirit of fairness. Everyone starts off equally in most IOTs, and you should excel or succeed entirely on your own merits, not an extremely unfair advantage.

 

[mayor]

I'm in the 'DLs are to be harshly punished' camp for the arguments already stated by Sone and Sonic Tany.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thor seems to be the consensus for a helper, but he has not responded here. Thor?