Discussion in 'Civ4 -ISDG 2012' started by Sommerswerd, Aug 17, 2011.
I think the only thing that is holding us up from starting is the Teams approving the ruleset.
Well, it doesn't seem to be finalized here, is it?
Use common sense and stop trying to impose stupid rules that allow game exploits and we can start this very soon.
Try to bend rules in your favour, not only you will ruin the fun for more people, but your potential victory will be worthless since it has less to do with civ and more to do with how well you "cheated".
Winning at any cost should not be the issue here, but having a fun and balanced game of Civilization4 !
Keep that in mind and let the game begin!
P.S. Today, please!
Yes, exactly, trying to create artificial rules favoring some specific group of players only because they are used to play the game with those artificial rules is not good. Play the game as it is intended to be played, not with 1000 bans and rules which only few think are fair.
Oh, this game's still alive?
Yeah, strange, but the Universe is not spinning around you or your approval.
Moderator Action: Trolling like this isn't cool
Well thanks captain obvious. I wasn't aware that I'm not the centre of the universe. Thanks for informing me.
We had a ruleset, we had picks, we had the map, all we needed was to say go. Then Sommers decided he didn't like the ruleset and how it applied to his team's picks, and made an executive decision to stall the game. It's already delayed the game by a week, how much longer?
Yeah, thanks Admiral Obvious for letting us know your genuine surprise the game that all the civ communities except the one you feel allegiance lately expect with temptation and positive feelings.
You might had ruleset, but this is only 1/9 th of the participants opinion. Most of the players are not given their opinion on the rules. You and your clique being the most vocal and arrogant in pushing forward what you believe if fair doesnt make you right.
If I was a moderator, I would remove your absolutely pointless except being full of ill faith sarcastic post.
Moderator Action: If you have a problem with a post, then report it. You started it though.
Last day I was explaining enthusiastically about this great game which is supposed to be the biggest of all events in Civ4 MP to a friend of mine, who is gamer, but not strategy games, but Microsoft Flight simulators. And then I told him how many divided communities we have and the frictions we have sometimes between the communities. He was truly surprised to hear we are divided and cant always find common language. He asked me: "But you do play the same game, right?" I say: "Yes, the same game indeed". And then he asked me: "But why you are divided then? Isnt it way better if you all find a common language and play it - the more, the merrier?" I did not knew what to answer him. Yes, it is sad we love the same game and still cant find love or at least acceptance for each-other. Just like in the real life, I start realizing there is such things like cyber xenophobia and elitism. Why?
I feel no particular allegiance towards RB over CFC, I chose their team because I didn't want to be associated with certain people on the CFC team. I still spend a lot more time on CFC than anywhere else on the internet. Nothing I post has anything to do with RB, I have no official role over there. It's all my own personal opinion. Any other interpretation of the meaning behind my posts is wrong.
RE: the ruleset. It was a ruleset that had no major objections until, conveniently, right after CFC made their picks. Then, and only then, did CFC decide that they wanted to throw it out completely, and get every single team to draft their own ruleset. Never mind the questionable timing, most people have no interest in drafting a ruleset. It's an insane proposal. CFC is the only community which had more than minor problem with the initially proposed ruleset, which was taken from the previous demogames and expanded upon (so you can't accuse RB of trying to tell everyone that they have to use RB's rules). If any other community had a major problem with the ruleset, they would've raised it long ago. It's only CFC who can't seem to handle any rules being proposed that don't suit their specific gameplan.
You're not a moderator, and I'm quite thankful for that, because you would be a terrible moderator. You've been trolling RB in particular pretty much the entire setup period, and you haven't been remotely subtle about it.
Moderator Action: Discuss the issue, not the other members
Then we must believe it is only a 1:100000 coincidence that you are negative about CFC and your opinion always support the RB cause.
This is simply not true. RB representative (or spokesman) proposes ruleset halfway the leader/civ selection process (but after their choice is done), Team CFC says we want all teams to be done with their leader/civ discussion so all teams can discuss/propose rulesets. Then CFC proposes rules, which in fact repeats the common sense ones, but removing the ones, who we think are over-complicating the ruleset and are not commonly used.
This is OK, just as the CFC ruleset.
Well, here is where we disagree and dont see a logic in imposing the RB house rules over the whole civ MP community and we dont include them in our proposed ruleset. If those additions RB proposes are good after all, they will win the vote of the 9 sites, if they are not, they will not be included. Fair, yes?
The same way I can say the rules Rb proposed fits only their specific game plan, as they are used to play with those restrictions they want to put on the rules.
Hmm, strange, despite I never been moderator at CFC, I have heard you were banned several times during the years, so it seems it is not only me who think you need some moderation.
Moderator Action: Discussing others' infraction and ban history is not allowed
One more strange and biased opinion. Actually I got official apology with his hand on his heart from the diplomat of RB for folks over RB acting like (I quote) "diсks", "аssholes" when I was "polite" and "reasonable". Some other respected RB members have said they are ashamed of the acts of their fellow forum members, who (quote) stain RB". Even the mod over RB started threaten the most articulate profanes over RB with temporal bans for throwing personal attacks and brainless childish insults at me for questioning a game rule. And against this I was actually quite subtle, even Sullla called my posts (quote) "veiled"
So, can you rethink your opinion about me acting in bad faith or you prefer to keep your obviously irrationally bad opinion on me and my intentions?
Why would I join the RB team if I disagree with everything they do? Conversely, why would I join the CFC team when I don't like some of their members and their game philosophies? Doesn't mean I speak for RB.
The only additions to the previous demogame ruleset (that I can see) is the nuke ban, and the proposed DM ruleset. Rewriting the entire ruleset rather than just the DM ruleset is a sneaky way to remove things you don't like. And Sommers claiming supreme responsibility for the ruleset compilation is not fair, no matter what spin you put on it.
Cool story bro. Very relevant.
Is this supposed to mean something to me?
When you give me any indication you're not acting in bad faith, I'll rethink it. Until then, you can get stuffed.
Moderator Action: You were fine until the last sentence. Saying "get stuffed" goes over the line.
You, know what? Just forget about it. With the same success I can try convincing my radio. It is all my fault I decided I can have a meaningful discussion with someone who have in red bold +5 size letters in his signature
I'M ALWAYS RIGHT AND NEVER WRONG
Begone in peace, bro.
It's size 3 actually.
Finally you are right about something
Moderator Action: This game can do without the personal attacks. I've marked up a few posts instead of handing out yellow or red cards, this time. Let's focus on getting the ruleset finalized and the game started.
This has become really annoying !
You have this weekend to finalize game settings and launch game. Otherwize at least one team won't be participating!
When staging takes longer than the game itself, you know you're in the wrong community.
Hi dracuela, it's been a long and drawn out (and somewhat heated..) discussion about the rules. But that is drawing to a close now. Has your team chimed in on that, or are you fine with whatever rules are in place?
I understand your concern, but I also think that if more teams participated in the rules discussion - even just with a "the rules are fine, we accept, let's play" - then that could help.
Also there was some issues with the server, but that's fixed now.
I completely agree that the setup phase of this game has taken far too long, and could have been much better organized. However, do note that the game itself will take 1-2 years to play (at a turn per 1-2 days) - far longer than the setup phase.
More of a reason to start it faster.
There has been more than enough voting for a decision on the rules to be taken.
Not to mention it's utterly unsportsmanlike to change votes AFTER the picking of civs/leaders.
Separate names with a comma.