Random DG5 Idea: A Multi-Team Game?

ravensfire said:
This game is supposed to be about what we, the members of CFC, prefer. If most of us prefer to play with Conquests, why should we not be allowed to?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Right, but those that own conquests are not the only members of CFC or the demogame. And, since you are not in that position, I don't see how you can pretend to speak for them. The only comments we got from those in that position were that they would not, and could not play. I am not going to let the 'majority' exclude others from playing. It is that simple. The other moderators agreed as well, after a discussion of some length, which I will ask CT to post once I can get in touch with her.

This is the only point in which I intend to 'interfere' in this demogame, by the way. It is, in my opinion, best that at least one of the moderators be able to be objective because of lack of direct involvement in the game.

Had the mods not made a decision on this, and allowed the vote to go ahead, a group of people would have been excluded from this game, whether because of not owning Conquests, using a Mac, etc. It is all explained in the log.
 
donsig said:
Cyc and I had been good friends from term one of DG1 only to have that friendship dissolve in term one of DG4. (Due in large part to unilateral moderator decisions.)

I'm going to allow you this one oppurtunity to talk about moderator decisions so that you can explain the load of crap you just posted above...
 
eyrei

Comments removed prior to submission.

Passive only mode: ON

-- Ravensfire

Moderator Action: Ravensfire, play nice.
 
ravensfire said:
eyrei

Comments removed prior to submission.

Passive only mode: ON

-- Ravensfire

Then why did you bother posting at all? To be a smartass? I'll let one of the other mods give you the warning for appearances sake...

Now, I'm sorry to have even tried to explain this to you guys. Remind me not to bother trying to explain things to you in the future...
 
Here is the log of the conversation we had regarding the version.
 

Attachments

  • Demogame Mods Chat.zip
    3.6 KB · Views: 296
While we're still off topic, let me suggest something else.

So long as we're suggesting a new spawn off DG5, a team game, why not also spawn off a new SPDG, one using PTW or C3C? Like I've said, it's easy enough to create a new forum and chatroom for such a purpose. The problem is solved: we have a game that isn't using vanilla Civ3, and the main CFC game can continue to welcome all players.
 
Oct, let's see if we can get the cornerstone built first; that of course being the SPDG. I have serious concerns that the CFC DemoGame contingent is spread thin enough with the 3 core games we already have(or will have) going.

For those wishing to play Conquests or PTW, might I suggest a role in the respective ISDGs? These games are in need of help as well, and we play against humans! The fun factor is based on the lack of predictability that the human player provides.
 
Donovan Zoi said:
For those wishing to play Conquests or PTW, might I suggest a role in the respective ISDGs? These games are in need of help as well, and we play against humans! The fun factor is based on the lack of predictability that the human player provides.

I have to disagree. There's one key difference I observed between the intra-site team games at Apolyton, and the ISDGs. There's a lot more inter-team communication going on, and the general atmosphere is a lot lighter. To prove my point, look at the public forum of the PTWDGII (an example of the kind of game I want to create here). In particular, I point to the 'propoganda war' that has kinda broken out, one that mirrors the hostilities currently underway of my team and allies (Team Monty Python and Team Cake or Death?) against our enemy (Team Monkey).

You don't see that kind of stuff in the ISDGs, and they aren't that fun because of it.
 
Maybe it's just me (and half the MP crowd), but what I don't like about PBEM games is that they're SLOW, and do take up to 18 months to finish. Even if we have 1 game, Civ4 will be out by the time it finishes, and even then, there'll be just 2 teams with limited players (defeated players won't be able to join since they could possibly give info that could affect the game).
 
eyrei said:
I'm going to allow you this one oppurtunity to talk about moderator decisions so that you can explain the load of crap you just posted above...

Thank you for the opportunity. It was a moderator decision to start DG4 before we had the ruleset in place. That decision was directly responsible for the first term judicial election fiasco. Need I document the subsequent moderator decisions that compounded that initial mistake?
 
donsig said:
Thank you for the opportunity. It was a moderator decision to start DG4 before we had the ruleset in place. That decision was directly responsible for the first term judicial election fiasco. Need I document the subsequent moderator decisions that compounded that initial mistake?

As I did before, I will apologize once again for that. I don't think that the demise of your friendship with Cyc rests solely on my shoulders, however. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, my friendship with Cyc ended shortly thereafter on a somewhat related matter. See a pattern? I won't take the blame for the scorched earth tactics of DG4's first Chief Justice. Sorry. :(
 
I just asked Thunderfall about it, and he said:

Thunderfall (8:45 PM) :
8 privates forums is too many to manage.

When I asked him about letting the mods controll the usergroups -

Thunderfall (8:51 PM) :
i will consider it. but 8 private forums just for MPDG still seems too many.

Doesn't look like CFC will ever have an site-based MPDG.

Also...

Thunderfall (8:55 PM) :
Why use CDG? if we don't create those 8 private sub-forums, u guys are better off creating a separate forum like the Gofg's forum for private team forums.


But, remember that this does *NOT* mean we'll be getting a group of forums over at CDG. Thunderfall does not allow it.

EDIT: :hmm: Thunderfall's sounding kind of eager about the idea right now...
 
I sincerely doubt we'll have eight teams, CT. My guess is it'll be more like five or six, depending on how many sign-ups we get. I haven't even started trying to get this idea to the SG and PBEM folks.
 
Donovan Zoi said:
As I did before, I will apologize once again for that. I don't think that the demise of your friendship with Cyc rests solely on my shoulders, however. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, my friendship with Cyc ended shortly thereafter on a somewhat related matter. See a pattern? I won't take the blame for the scorched earth tactics of DG4's first Chief Justice. Sorry. :(

No need to apologize again. I'm only trying to point out the dangers inherent in unilateral mod decisions. Your intentions were admirable, as are the intentions behind forcing another Vanilla Civ demogame. My point is that the decision not only did not acheive the desired results it was actually counter-productive. The same will be true of the Vanilla Civ DG5. The intent is to maximze participation by not excluding some people but the result will be even smaller participation than in DG4. (BTW, I don't buy the exclusion principle. I've been trying to point out for a long time that we should structure the demogame so that one could participate in it without looking at the save all the time.)

Finally, while I still do not agree with Cyc's actions as CJ the fact remains that if we had worked out our rules before playing we would have avoided many arguments and quite possibly more of us would still be friends and participating in the demogame.
 
Octavian X said:
I sincerely doubt we'll have eight teams, CT. My guess is it'll be more like five or six, depending on how many sign-ups we get. I haven't even started trying to get this idea to the SG and PBEM folks.

How many private forums could we get? Heck, it would even be fun to try this with two or three teams and some AI.
 
Top Bottom