Realms Beyond Emperor: The DSG's
- Thread starter Sirian
- Start date
Charis
Realms Beyond
I feel like the guy who moved away from his hometown and when he came back years later to find a storm brewing and he's totally ignorant of all the issues or what went on in his town while he was away. And I really like my hometown, and my friends there...
Ignorant of the deeper issues I can only say I'm surprised at the eruption, as there seemed to be movement to the center, followed by a post by Arathorn in which I saw as completely peaceful.
But I *DO* know about Civ burnout, about things going redline in your life, and about making decisions to back away, fully away, from things that have a lot of merit but which are 'camel straws'. I do know what it's like to be attacked without merit (although not to the same degree as some), and I know that when you put as MUCH work as Sirian does into something, like the original SG games, this RBE series, the Epics, it's *really* painful, at a deep level, to catch grief (appropriate or inappropriate, it matters not) for anything associated with that labor of love. He's not trying to win followers, or seek glory or to publicize a web site, he's doing what he does for the love of the game. And it's for that I have such deep respect and a strong "vote of confidence" for him.
Let me make that clear, in public, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Sirian, a vote-of-confidence for his hard work, for his skill, and for his leadership. I truly hope he'll kick back a bit, allow himself some refreshing, and that I continue to get to work and play with him. Besides, I like Monarchies!
Let me also make clear I lack any knowledge of the history behind this, and don't see myself as 'picking sides' by saying that I value Arathorn's leadership and skill, LOTR series, Always war epic sponsorship, and his geeky feedback to my posts. I like Republic's too
But I don't like Anarchy. With regard to the current situation, Sirian has made the only correct choice (imho), to back off and to salvage what he can with what matters to him, so that his 'non-corrupt core' of activies remain productive and do not get trampled by the rampaging horde known as 'burnout' and 'stress'. Without regard to the merit of anyone's case here, I recognize the correctness of removing himself from this game's roster. I truly hope he can consolidate and refresh himself, and stay "in the game" for a long time to come. I'm rather enjoying the Epics along side SG's, and look forward to playing a game with him very soon. I also look forward to the current game with everyone still on the roster!
As for this game, I recognize Architect as the captain for this specific game, and will play with whatever settings/roster he decides. Just two thoughts though, for consideration -
i) IF the consensus was a Viking archipelago game, and it was switched to Carthaginians for Sirian's sake, that we revert to the original consensus
ii) We could fit falsfire and Itaeen in the roster and make it a six-pack. While I normally prefer 5 on the roster (4 solid is good, but the threat of 3 I've seen as not pleasant), I would not be opposed to getting all 6 in this game. The resulting decrease in time needed would help several of us get another game started (staggered, not right now) without too big of a feast-fear
Charis
Ignorant of the deeper issues I can only say I'm surprised at the eruption, as there seemed to be movement to the center, followed by a post by Arathorn in which I saw as completely peaceful.
But I *DO* know about Civ burnout, about things going redline in your life, and about making decisions to back away, fully away, from things that have a lot of merit but which are 'camel straws'. I do know what it's like to be attacked without merit (although not to the same degree as some), and I know that when you put as MUCH work as Sirian does into something, like the original SG games, this RBE series, the Epics, it's *really* painful, at a deep level, to catch grief (appropriate or inappropriate, it matters not) for anything associated with that labor of love. He's not trying to win followers, or seek glory or to publicize a web site, he's doing what he does for the love of the game. And it's for that I have such deep respect and a strong "vote of confidence" for him.
Let me make that clear, in public, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Sirian, a vote-of-confidence for his hard work, for his skill, and for his leadership. I truly hope he'll kick back a bit, allow himself some refreshing, and that I continue to get to work and play with him. Besides, I like Monarchies!
Let me also make clear I lack any knowledge of the history behind this, and don't see myself as 'picking sides' by saying that I value Arathorn's leadership and skill, LOTR series, Always war epic sponsorship, and his geeky feedback to my posts. I like Republic's too
But I don't like Anarchy. With regard to the current situation, Sirian has made the only correct choice (imho), to back off and to salvage what he can with what matters to him, so that his 'non-corrupt core' of activies remain productive and do not get trampled by the rampaging horde known as 'burnout' and 'stress'. Without regard to the merit of anyone's case here, I recognize the correctness of removing himself from this game's roster. I truly hope he can consolidate and refresh himself, and stay "in the game" for a long time to come. I'm rather enjoying the Epics along side SG's, and look forward to playing a game with him very soon. I also look forward to the current game with everyone still on the roster!
As for this game, I recognize Architect as the captain for this specific game, and will play with whatever settings/roster he decides. Just two thoughts though, for consideration -
i) IF the consensus was a Viking archipelago game, and it was switched to Carthaginians for Sirian's sake, that we revert to the original consensus
ii) We could fit falsfire and Itaeen in the roster and make it a six-pack. While I normally prefer 5 on the roster (4 solid is good, but the threat of 3 I've seen as not pleasant), I would not be opposed to getting all 6 in this game. The resulting decrease in time needed would help several of us get another game started (staggered, not right now) without too big of a feast-fear
Charis
I was on the fence for vikings and Sirian's post did sway my decision. I will switch to vikings/pelago with restless barbarians.
As for six on the roster, I don't really care. So I'll add falsfire and/or Itaeen to the roster. Those two need to post something by tonight to confirm joining the game. I'll check back before I start tonight which will be around 9:00pm CST.
As for six on the roster, I don't really care. So I'll add falsfire and/or Itaeen to the roster. Those two need to post something by tonight to confirm joining the game. I'll check back before I start tonight which will be around 9:00pm CST.
I have now reread much of the thread from the last couple days. I promised I would be back today with a few more observations.
I am not sure what the difference between "captain" and "monarch" is, in Sirian's eyes. I can happily change my comment of approximately "I guess I'm just not cut out to be a peon in a monarchy" to "I guess I'm just not cut out to be a rower under a captain" and apologize for the former. To me, they say the same thing, but I have long experience with different people and different connotations, so I retract the former and insert the latter. [At this point, too, I would point out that it was originally intended to be a comment about *me* and not about Sirian or RB Epics or any of the SGs here. A strong organizer and driver is required.]
As far as not responding to a specific message on the Realms Beyond forum, I am only there intermittently and do not recall the message in question. Even when I'm there, I don't read every post. If I offended by my lack of action, I apologize again.
I agree with Charis' comments about real life going redline and how that affects your outlook on things. My exit from the Epics was not entirely driven by factors there, that's for certain. With whatever issues Sirian may or may not be dealing with, I wish him much luck and I'll say a few prayers for him.
Specifically in regards to RBE5, I am withdrawing from any position of power or driving force. If I am on the final roster, I will very happily play and will contribute my full Civ3 thoughts on the matter. If I am not on the roster, I will not be offended.
Arathorn
I am not sure what the difference between "captain" and "monarch" is, in Sirian's eyes. I can happily change my comment of approximately "I guess I'm just not cut out to be a peon in a monarchy" to "I guess I'm just not cut out to be a rower under a captain" and apologize for the former. To me, they say the same thing, but I have long experience with different people and different connotations, so I retract the former and insert the latter. [At this point, too, I would point out that it was originally intended to be a comment about *me* and not about Sirian or RB Epics or any of the SGs here. A strong organizer and driver is required.]
As far as not responding to a specific message on the Realms Beyond forum, I am only there intermittently and do not recall the message in question. Even when I'm there, I don't read every post. If I offended by my lack of action, I apologize again.
I agree with Charis' comments about real life going redline and how that affects your outlook on things. My exit from the Epics was not entirely driven by factors there, that's for certain. With whatever issues Sirian may or may not be dealing with, I wish him much luck and I'll say a few prayers for him.
Specifically in regards to RBE5, I am withdrawing from any position of power or driving force. If I am on the final roster, I will very happily play and will contribute my full Civ3 thoughts on the matter. If I am not on the roster, I will not be offended.
Arathorn
T-hawk
Transcend
Aww, I feel left out...
But yes, I second (or third, or however many people have posted) the sentiment that a game needs a captain; look how easily RBE4 got going compared to all this mess. I remember making the Democracy-instead-of-Monarchy argument long ago in the Epics, which just led to a mess.
Also, not that this is adding anything constructive to the discussion, but I was pretty close to making a big argument against the qualification rules. But I decided against it and played a qualifying game (in my own usual skirt-the-edge-of-the-rule way
- I was a bit surprised you never took me to task on that), and I do think it's a worthwhile policy. Simply naming a game RBP or LOTR instead of RBE "gets around" the qualifying rule, though. So it comes down to - what's in a name? I dunno, but I agree there is something, though I can't specifically put my finger on it.FWIW, that was your own decision; LK27 with China won just fine; you just dropped before it finished. Feel free to pick it up and add it to your Hall, though.
Also, I do agree with Arathorn's observation that your second long post seemed much more hostile than the first, despite him not even visiting the board in the interim. At least give the guy a chance to respond before you go in deeper. Debating is a turn-based game, not real-time
I'll add whatever weight I can to the "please reconsider" argument, but that particular boulder probably outweighs all of us. At least continue to follow along in RBE4 to see whatever surprises you left there for us
If the general concensus is such, sure, throw me on the end of the RBE5 roster. If this is not a consensus, then I'm okay with waiting til the next SG.
After all, I now have epics 18,19,20, RBP1, and possibly this SG to play
But my focus will be on finishing epic 18...about halfway into the first game so far.
After all, I now have epics 18,19,20, RBP1, and possibly this SG to play
But my focus will be on finishing epic 18...about halfway into the first game so far.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
The rules do not exist for their own sake. That I did not choose to spend any energy on this point was a clear indication that I had a lot less available to be spending, and was in conserve mode. Sometimes one can fight every battle, but more likely one has to pick and choose which battles are worth fighting. Since I knew you were qualified in the spirit, I figured the damage done to the rules and the bad example you set on that point were just not worth the cost to enforce. I believe I made the right choice, but I would have preferred you had done it differently. You did enough other positive things to earn some credit with me, though. If you wanted to spend that credit this way... your choice. What good is credit if you never draw on it? What use in building up credit (and being productive or going out of your way to be supportive) if that doesn't get you any slack? I don't need you to agree with me on most things, just to act in good faith. Were you acting in good faith there? I don't know, but I gave you benefit of the doubt. I read your response as a minor gripe against the rules but a willingness to go along with them anyway. I decided I could accept that compromise. I don't think it worked out badly.
That post wasn't addressed to Arathorn. The hard feelings shown there are a little tangled. I felt betrayed. I still feel that way. I'll come back and explain why later tonight, but for now I have another commitment to keep.
- Sirian
Arizona_Steve
King
Woohoo!!!
The final map, just before I triggered domination...
(...wondering what happened to half the city names...)
The final map, just before I triggered domination...
(...wondering what happened to half the city names...)
Iteean
Chieftain
Architect,
Sorry I missed the deadline to join up. I didn't know of the deadline until this morning. Since I wasn't part of any current game, I wasn't reading this forum daily.
Would you consider adding me to the roster, post-start? I'll respect your decision either way, especially since I make the "dreaded" sixth member. "Yay" if the answer is yes, no ill feelings if no.
Iteean
Sorry I missed the deadline to join up. I didn't know of the deadline until this morning. Since I wasn't part of any current game, I wasn't reading this forum daily.
Would you consider adding me to the roster, post-start? I'll respect your decision either way, especially since I make the "dreaded" sixth member.
"Yay" if the answer is yes, no ill feelings if no.Iteean
Arizona_Steve
King
Hmm... All has gone quiet here since RBE5 got going...
Are there any plans to start RBE6 (or any other Deity SG's)?
Are there any plans to start RBE6 (or any other Deity SG's)?
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Hey Arizona_Steve, I played my 1st PTW game with the celtics too. I am still in the middle ages but have the game in hand (love those swords, also got an early leader -> FP). I haven't had any time to play lately, I've been very buisy. There is a new balrog in my horde! But things are starting to settle down and I would like to get into a Diety PTW SG - I like the RBC rules but don't necessarily want to play completely honorable (just no exploits). I like the idea of playing with/against as many of the new civs as possible.
Charis
Realms Beyond
Hey there Arizona_Steve, Congratulations!
I think things quieted down in this thread on purpose
I'm sure once the Viking game goes for a while another one will start (to give a bit of staggering to the starts).
@Gothmog - hey congrats on the addition to your horde
If there are about two more folks who would like a deity lvl
PtW SG that isn't rated over-the-top for difficulty, we could
kick one off sooner. (Carbon?) Perhaps take the Ottomans in
a small game with other Middle East and/or new civs?
So was there anyone else interested at this point?
(Hey Lee, have you taken the Deity plunge yet?!)
Charis
I think things quieted down in this thread on purpose
I'm sure once the Viking game goes for a while another one will start (to give a bit of staggering to the starts).
@Gothmog - hey congrats on the addition to your horde
If there are about two more folks who would like a deity lvl
PtW SG that isn't rated over-the-top for difficulty, we could
kick one off sooner. (Carbon?) Perhaps take the Ottomans in
a small game with other Middle East and/or new civs?
So was there anyone else interested at this point?
(Hey Lee, have you taken the Deity plunge yet?!)
Charis
Mystery13
Prince
I want to, but if it's a DSG game then I can't prove qualification yet.
Carbon_Copy
Elemental
Of course, for the moment I'm not RBE-qualified, so it would have to be called something else (RBP2?). Also, I'm kind of burnt out on the Ottomans, I'm in the middle of a Deity solo game as them, and while I haven't won it (or even close, it's the early middle ages and I just ate a 7-turn anarchy), I might just pull something out. I'd vote for the Spanish, myself, or some other religious civ. Could definitely stand some religion after that hellacious anarchy.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
My message here is more than 33,000 characters, so I have to split it into three posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The semantic change doesn't make any difference, Arathorn. Both describe a situation where someone has no input into decision-making. This view is not connected to reality. The reality is that there is a whole lot of ground in between the two poles of absolute power and zero input. It may be true for you that if you don't have final authority, that you FEEL like a peon who has no power at all, but you cannot make such statements and not have them reflect on the authority you are challenging.
When you define your position in contrast to something, you define that contrasting thing, too. If you feel like a peon in a monarchy, who's the monarch? That "in a monarchy" phrase is either a petulant remark (careless) or a political trick (if deliberate). You define my position. Whether or not your definition is accurate is very important to me, because if it's not but you get a number of others to agree with you, you've driven a manipulative wedge between me and those others -- based on a falsehood. When you refuse to own up to it, but say it's only about you, or that it's valid (and not subject to challenge on my part, because your feelings are all the validation it needs), that's an insistence in the correctness of your definition. You've stood behind the charge in the past, and again now.
Combine that with your direct accusation that my decision making was tainted by bias in slanting the rules to my personal favor and there's no way you'll convince me that you acted in good faith there. You ignored my willingness to debate the issue on merit and chose instead to frame me as a tyrant.
You say that your explosion had more to do with things in your private life than it had to do with me. Well, I can understand that. I can come to peace over that. That also makes matters worse here, not better. It deepens my sense of injury. If I caught a stress explosion from you that was unjust and disproportionate, filled with anger at somebody else in your life that you chose to dump on me, and you recognize that, you passed up a whole lot of opportunities to come back and apologize, to try to make right on damage you did. It would not have taken much, just a small show of good faith. Just take responsibility. You still haven't made that effort. And if you don't think you have anything to apologize for, then what are you doing claiming private life stress as the cause? The cause of what? You can't have that both ways.
I added straws for you, Arathorn. I know that. I know you had a new baby and had to be under stress. I'm sorry for adding to your burdens, but I presumed that you wouldn't choose to involve yourself in a dispute you couldn't handle. I see that you had the responsibility to decide where to spend your emotional capital. My primary concern as Epics organizer was to do the best job for the Epics, not to give you concessions just to lighten your burdens. In the larger picture, maybe it would have been better for all if I had simply conceded to "keep the peace", but I didn't owe you that. You chose to press your case, and you chose to make it personal in challenging me with accusations of corruption, rather than debate on the merits. What were you smoking?
Did you actually believe that resorting to manipulation in place of presenting your reasoning was going to win you the issue? When I challenged you to back those accusations up with facts, you hid behind the excuse of your opinions being valid based solely on your emotion. You didn't need facts or proof. Just the presumption that I was a cheat granted you the right, so you claimed, to call me one, in effect. I see that as the ultimate in bad faith. Forget reality, forget being right, forget getting to the truth. Arathorn's feelings trump the truth? No, they don't. I never challenged your right to feel whatever you feel. I only challenged your right to dump on me if the facts did not match your feelings. If you're going to attack, that's a choice, but you risk much. You have to get it right, and if you don't, you pay a price. The facts have to back up your suspicions, or you fall flat and lose credibility.
I had evidence showing where I made rules decisions that ran counter both to my personal preferences and my interests in the game in terms of strategic performance. Did you recant your accusations of corruption? No, you ignored my evidence and continued on with the accusations.
You made the relationship adversarial. You attacked me -- and in my mind, with insufficient cause. Once I came to distrust you, I started sniping back, then everybody got muddy and I gave you live ammo to fire at me. Disagreeing with me over a ruling is not cause to describe my leadership as tyrannical or attack my character, but you did both anyway. Then once I put my guard up and sniped back at you, you ripped into me hard for the sniping. Wow, what an ambush I walked into there. I'm still bleeding from that explosion.
I never treated you like a peon or a rowing slave. I challenge you to prove otherwise if you disagree. That you are STILL HERE RIGHT NOW TODAY upholding the "validity" of your "feelings" about being a peon/rower is both unfair to me and not rational. The implication is that you have the feelings, therefore they were caused by something in reality. Not necessarily true. Could be. But maybe not. You have to check the facts. If the facts don't agree with your feelings, you can't go forward guns blazing. You have to use your head as a check/balance on your heart. Your injured feelings are not enough justification for you to target somebody with live weaponry. If the feelings are out of whack for some reason, arising out of something I had nothing to do with, then you are not within your rights to attack me.
There are three responses that neutral observers can implement in regard to our confrontations. 1) Stay out of it. 2) Choose a side to support. 3) Stick themselves in the middle in an effort to separate the combatants and stop the fight.
Choice three is a poor choice to be making when a serious fight is taking place. Folks can get themselves hurt that way. More to the point, sometimes things are worth fighting for. If fundamental disagreements go unanswered, an intolerance of disagreement doesn't mean peace. It means the boiling pot builds up more pressure. Sometimes, you're not going to get a choice between conflict and harmony. You're going to get a choice between conflict and worse conflict. People disagree, and disagreement is not always pretty. To try to keep the peace is a noble goal, but it is not always best served by suppressing conflict.
Of those who may have been inclined to support me in this fight, most know I can take care of myself. So I presumed that not everyone standing on the sideline was indifferent, unobservant of the goings on, or holding a truly neutral position. I assumed a good chunk of folks were just being prudent.
Folks are not always going to agree, that's a given. When there are disagreements, there are any number of ways to resolve them. One is by brute force, to inflict enough pain on the opposition to lead them to surrender. Another is by majority ruling. Take a vote, enact the result. A third is to entrust a leader with the final authority. Each has its valid place in the scheme of things, and each has its pitfalls. The first is the most dire method, but if the importance of the dispute exceeds the cost paid to win the war, it can be preferable in some instances to losing the dispute. That is the reality of war: there are, in fact, some things worse than war. What those are is up for debate, but that's another topic. Majority ruling also has its place, but what if the decision requires expertise? What if it requires experienced, well-considered judgement? That's why a well-run Republic is preferable to a strict Democracy: every governed citizen needs a voice, and collectively the citizenry need the power to throw the bums out, but running a group is too complex for every citizen to become well informed on every issue. Entrusting leaders (who have checks and balances on their authority) to make the tough decisions, provides a better outcome than putting every last decision to the vote. The pitfall of the representative system is that the leader may be corrupt, betraying his duties and responsibilities to the group by putting his own personal interests forward instead. There is no more serious charge against such a leader than personal corruption.
The surest way to undermine and undercut someone's authority over those voluntarity entrusting their fate to a leader, is to attack the trust. Give them cause to doubt his judgement or integrity. Like it or not, once that takes place, there's a power struggle. It's a coup de tat, an effort to tear down and replace existing leadership with a new power structure that uses brute force to claim ascendancy.
Those witnesses who did not understand or realize the gravity of this situation... were not paying attention.
In my view, this whole thing was tragically avoidable. I was willing to debate the specifics of the Epics rules. I made any number of changes to them based on concerns raised by the players. I made other changes in reaction to newly discovered flaws in the rules as a result of player activity. Arathorn stopped debating rules and started attacking my leadership. He wanted to substitute his judgement for mine. I confronted the attack head, offering my case for why the charges were invalid. Arathorn did not respond, did not engage in further debate. He stewed quietly for a few days, then erupted with a massive attack.
There are those who say to ignore such attacks, but that's not my style, and there's a consciously chosen reason for that. I am not, in the end, a tyrant at all. I lead by trust. If I have a vision to create something, I go out and do it. I see a difference between trying to take over an existing group, and creating a new group. If I create a new group of wholly voluntary participants, I deserve to be the leader. I deserve it for putting in the work, for being the architect of the design. And as long as I remain true to that design and produce effective results, I expect others either to cooperate, or to choose not to participate. The only valid reasons for a vote of no confidence would be corruption or failure.
If those I'm leading don't agree with me all the time, that's fine. That's going to happen. I work to reach compromises acceptable to all. I work hard enough, in my view, to build up a history of credit, that I should deserve to be cut some slack over a controversial issue, AT LEAST to the point of being given benefit of the doubt about my personal integrity as a leader. If even one player under my charge stops trusting me, that's a crisis. It's a crisis to me because it means something is wrong. Someone disagrees with me so strongly that they're willing to put the entire group at risk to take a stand. That something MUST be resolved. If I'm the one in the wrong, I want to know. I make mistakes. I have an ego. There's more than trust between leader or follower at stake. There's also the leader's trust in himself, in his own judgement, in his policy decisions, in his philosophy and ideals. I have the humility to know that my judgement is fallible, and that is the only thing I have to temper my confidence in my judgement. That constant check and balance goes on with me internally, and I put a lot of energy into it. I know that aspect of things doesn't show. It's not intended to show. This is an adult arena and the results ought to speak for themselves. I go by the results. A corrupt tree does not produce corrupt fruit. So I look to the fruit. And... if some of the fruit is spoiling, it's my responsibility as caretaker of the tree to stop it. If the problem is external, it's a threat I have a duty to remove. If the problem is something I'm doing, I have a duty to change it. Usually there's a combination of factors making problem solving costly in terms of time, energy, resources. That's why the trust is so vital. I have other priorities in life, as do we all, and I cannot afford to neglect them to do a better job here. For me to succeed here, the task at hand has to be kept manageable. So the community also has a responsibility back to me, in my leadership model. It is incumbent on them to minimize trouble making, to put care into what they choose to say, think and do. If they have a disagreement, there are mechanisms they can use to resolve them peacefully, and I trust them all to do so.
If after a good faith debate by all parties, there are still unresolved disputes about which direction to take the group, if I am leading, I will make the final decision. If I am not leading a particular effort, I will defer final judgement to whoever is leading. If someone else is leading, but leading a subgroup on an effort that is taking place under the larger umbrella of my leadership of the entire group, then I may feel obliged to step in on behalf of those to whom I have responsibility, if the effort is running off course. I won't do so lightly, because in bypassing the authority of a leader, I'm showing no confidence in their judgement and overruling them. That, too, is a serious matter. I place myself at risk, as well as the other leader, in doing that. Making that move here for RBE5 has had disastrous consequences. My trust in the community has been broken.
(continued)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The semantic change doesn't make any difference, Arathorn. Both describe a situation where someone has no input into decision-making. This view is not connected to reality. The reality is that there is a whole lot of ground in between the two poles of absolute power and zero input. It may be true for you that if you don't have final authority, that you FEEL like a peon who has no power at all, but you cannot make such statements and not have them reflect on the authority you are challenging.
When you define your position in contrast to something, you define that contrasting thing, too. If you feel like a peon in a monarchy, who's the monarch? That "in a monarchy" phrase is either a petulant remark (careless) or a political trick (if deliberate). You define my position. Whether or not your definition is accurate is very important to me, because if it's not but you get a number of others to agree with you, you've driven a manipulative wedge between me and those others -- based on a falsehood. When you refuse to own up to it, but say it's only about you, or that it's valid (and not subject to challenge on my part, because your feelings are all the validation it needs), that's an insistence in the correctness of your definition. You've stood behind the charge in the past, and again now.
Combine that with your direct accusation that my decision making was tainted by bias in slanting the rules to my personal favor and there's no way you'll convince me that you acted in good faith there. You ignored my willingness to debate the issue on merit and chose instead to frame me as a tyrant.
You say that your explosion had more to do with things in your private life than it had to do with me. Well, I can understand that. I can come to peace over that. That also makes matters worse here, not better. It deepens my sense of injury. If I caught a stress explosion from you that was unjust and disproportionate, filled with anger at somebody else in your life that you chose to dump on me, and you recognize that, you passed up a whole lot of opportunities to come back and apologize, to try to make right on damage you did. It would not have taken much, just a small show of good faith. Just take responsibility. You still haven't made that effort. And if you don't think you have anything to apologize for, then what are you doing claiming private life stress as the cause? The cause of what? You can't have that both ways.
I added straws for you, Arathorn. I know that. I know you had a new baby and had to be under stress. I'm sorry for adding to your burdens, but I presumed that you wouldn't choose to involve yourself in a dispute you couldn't handle. I see that you had the responsibility to decide where to spend your emotional capital. My primary concern as Epics organizer was to do the best job for the Epics, not to give you concessions just to lighten your burdens. In the larger picture, maybe it would have been better for all if I had simply conceded to "keep the peace", but I didn't owe you that. You chose to press your case, and you chose to make it personal in challenging me with accusations of corruption, rather than debate on the merits. What were you smoking?
Did you actually believe that resorting to manipulation in place of presenting your reasoning was going to win you the issue? When I challenged you to back those accusations up with facts, you hid behind the excuse of your opinions being valid based solely on your emotion. You didn't need facts or proof. Just the presumption that I was a cheat granted you the right, so you claimed, to call me one, in effect. I see that as the ultimate in bad faith. Forget reality, forget being right, forget getting to the truth. Arathorn's feelings trump the truth? No, they don't. I never challenged your right to feel whatever you feel. I only challenged your right to dump on me if the facts did not match your feelings. If you're going to attack, that's a choice, but you risk much. You have to get it right, and if you don't, you pay a price. The facts have to back up your suspicions, or you fall flat and lose credibility.I had evidence showing where I made rules decisions that ran counter both to my personal preferences and my interests in the game in terms of strategic performance. Did you recant your accusations of corruption? No, you ignored my evidence and continued on with the accusations.
You made the relationship adversarial. You attacked me -- and in my mind, with insufficient cause. Once I came to distrust you, I started sniping back, then everybody got muddy and I gave you live ammo to fire at me. Disagreeing with me over a ruling is not cause to describe my leadership as tyrannical or attack my character, but you did both anyway. Then once I put my guard up and sniped back at you, you ripped into me hard for the sniping. Wow, what an ambush I walked into there. I'm still bleeding from that explosion.
I never treated you like a peon or a rowing slave. I challenge you to prove otherwise if you disagree. That you are STILL HERE RIGHT NOW TODAY upholding the "validity" of your "feelings" about being a peon/rower is both unfair to me and not rational. The implication is that you have the feelings, therefore they were caused by something in reality. Not necessarily true. Could be. But maybe not. You have to check the facts. If the facts don't agree with your feelings, you can't go forward guns blazing. You have to use your head as a check/balance on your heart. Your injured feelings are not enough justification for you to target somebody with live weaponry. If the feelings are out of whack for some reason, arising out of something I had nothing to do with, then you are not within your rights to attack me.
There are three responses that neutral observers can implement in regard to our confrontations. 1) Stay out of it. 2) Choose a side to support. 3) Stick themselves in the middle in an effort to separate the combatants and stop the fight.
Choice three is a poor choice to be making when a serious fight is taking place. Folks can get themselves hurt that way. More to the point, sometimes things are worth fighting for. If fundamental disagreements go unanswered, an intolerance of disagreement doesn't mean peace. It means the boiling pot builds up more pressure. Sometimes, you're not going to get a choice between conflict and harmony. You're going to get a choice between conflict and worse conflict. People disagree, and disagreement is not always pretty. To try to keep the peace is a noble goal, but it is not always best served by suppressing conflict.
Of those who may have been inclined to support me in this fight, most know I can take care of myself. So I presumed that not everyone standing on the sideline was indifferent, unobservant of the goings on, or holding a truly neutral position. I assumed a good chunk of folks were just being prudent.
Folks are not always going to agree, that's a given. When there are disagreements, there are any number of ways to resolve them. One is by brute force, to inflict enough pain on the opposition to lead them to surrender. Another is by majority ruling. Take a vote, enact the result. A third is to entrust a leader with the final authority. Each has its valid place in the scheme of things, and each has its pitfalls. The first is the most dire method, but if the importance of the dispute exceeds the cost paid to win the war, it can be preferable in some instances to losing the dispute. That is the reality of war: there are, in fact, some things worse than war. What those are is up for debate, but that's another topic. Majority ruling also has its place, but what if the decision requires expertise? What if it requires experienced, well-considered judgement? That's why a well-run Republic is preferable to a strict Democracy: every governed citizen needs a voice, and collectively the citizenry need the power to throw the bums out, but running a group is too complex for every citizen to become well informed on every issue. Entrusting leaders (who have checks and balances on their authority) to make the tough decisions, provides a better outcome than putting every last decision to the vote. The pitfall of the representative system is that the leader may be corrupt, betraying his duties and responsibilities to the group by putting his own personal interests forward instead. There is no more serious charge against such a leader than personal corruption.
The surest way to undermine and undercut someone's authority over those voluntarity entrusting their fate to a leader, is to attack the trust. Give them cause to doubt his judgement or integrity. Like it or not, once that takes place, there's a power struggle. It's a coup de tat, an effort to tear down and replace existing leadership with a new power structure that uses brute force to claim ascendancy.
Those witnesses who did not understand or realize the gravity of this situation... were not paying attention.
In my view, this whole thing was tragically avoidable. I was willing to debate the specifics of the Epics rules. I made any number of changes to them based on concerns raised by the players. I made other changes in reaction to newly discovered flaws in the rules as a result of player activity. Arathorn stopped debating rules and started attacking my leadership. He wanted to substitute his judgement for mine. I confronted the attack head, offering my case for why the charges were invalid. Arathorn did not respond, did not engage in further debate. He stewed quietly for a few days, then erupted with a massive attack.
There are those who say to ignore such attacks, but that's not my style, and there's a consciously chosen reason for that. I am not, in the end, a tyrant at all. I lead by trust. If I have a vision to create something, I go out and do it. I see a difference between trying to take over an existing group, and creating a new group. If I create a new group of wholly voluntary participants, I deserve to be the leader. I deserve it for putting in the work, for being the architect of the design. And as long as I remain true to that design and produce effective results, I expect others either to cooperate, or to choose not to participate. The only valid reasons for a vote of no confidence would be corruption or failure.
If those I'm leading don't agree with me all the time, that's fine. That's going to happen. I work to reach compromises acceptable to all. I work hard enough, in my view, to build up a history of credit, that I should deserve to be cut some slack over a controversial issue, AT LEAST to the point of being given benefit of the doubt about my personal integrity as a leader. If even one player under my charge stops trusting me, that's a crisis. It's a crisis to me because it means something is wrong. Someone disagrees with me so strongly that they're willing to put the entire group at risk to take a stand. That something MUST be resolved. If I'm the one in the wrong, I want to know. I make mistakes. I have an ego. There's more than trust between leader or follower at stake. There's also the leader's trust in himself, in his own judgement, in his policy decisions, in his philosophy and ideals. I have the humility to know that my judgement is fallible, and that is the only thing I have to temper my confidence in my judgement. That constant check and balance goes on with me internally, and I put a lot of energy into it. I know that aspect of things doesn't show. It's not intended to show. This is an adult arena and the results ought to speak for themselves. I go by the results. A corrupt tree does not produce corrupt fruit. So I look to the fruit. And... if some of the fruit is spoiling, it's my responsibility as caretaker of the tree to stop it. If the problem is external, it's a threat I have a duty to remove. If the problem is something I'm doing, I have a duty to change it. Usually there's a combination of factors making problem solving costly in terms of time, energy, resources. That's why the trust is so vital. I have other priorities in life, as do we all, and I cannot afford to neglect them to do a better job here. For me to succeed here, the task at hand has to be kept manageable. So the community also has a responsibility back to me, in my leadership model. It is incumbent on them to minimize trouble making, to put care into what they choose to say, think and do. If they have a disagreement, there are mechanisms they can use to resolve them peacefully, and I trust them all to do so.
If after a good faith debate by all parties, there are still unresolved disputes about which direction to take the group, if I am leading, I will make the final decision. If I am not leading a particular effort, I will defer final judgement to whoever is leading. If someone else is leading, but leading a subgroup on an effort that is taking place under the larger umbrella of my leadership of the entire group, then I may feel obliged to step in on behalf of those to whom I have responsibility, if the effort is running off course. I won't do so lightly, because in bypassing the authority of a leader, I'm showing no confidence in their judgement and overruling them. That, too, is a serious matter. I place myself at risk, as well as the other leader, in doing that. Making that move here for RBE5 has had disastrous consequences. My trust in the community has been broken.
(continued)...
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Trust is a two-way street.
I went far out of my way to set up checks and balances for the Epics. I did not do so for RBE. The Epics are a large enough venture that they require all the participation they can get in order to succeed. If another tournament formed up because a group of Epics players disagreed with how things were being run and went off to start their own venture, if ANY Epics players left RBCiv to go with them, the Epics would suffer. Folks have only so much free time to play Civ III -- some may even be spending more than they should be -- so there is a competition factor in play. The CF GOTM is poorer off for not having Sulla there any more. All the players who played GOTM, or who would play it if the Epics didn't exist, are assets that GOTM lost out on for not meeting the needs of these players. While I have always had a specific vision for the Epics, the tournament is meant to be inclusive, to meet a community need, to attract as many good folks as we can get.
I could have carried out my vision as a true monarchy. I could have run the tournament from the warpcore; I have the means. I could have done all the site work, made all the decisions, dictated the rules, done all the maintenance. I might not have as many participants, but I would have had some just by offering a product some would desire to consume. If I wanted absolute control, I could have had it. Instead I sought to collaborate with Charis, to assemble the thing together. I did so in part because I know my own limits, know that I can't achieve as much on my own as I can with a network of cooperation and support. When he opted out, I did the assembly by myself after all, but I left plenty of room in the power structure for others. KoP and Gris were willing to host, and they worked with me on organizing the site. We had a few disagreements, but we worked out compromises. Putting the Epics in the hands of a host, and sharing the work load, authority and rewards with them, was a specific choice by me to build community faith. There would be a check on my authority, folks who could apply the brakes if they thought I went off track, as well as partners who take care of some of the work, leaving me to focus on the areas where my talents shine. We placed the tournament into a position where we would all mutually need one another, especially those of us running the show. There's a mechanism for sponsoring games, and a separate mechanism for running the official schedule. I've taken community input at every turn. I've worked damn hard to bring about both a vision (and stick to it enough to make it worthwhile) and to include the players in the process, to invest them with a sense of belonging, that their participation is important to the success of the whole tournament.
The monarchy quip is a slap in the face to all my efforts. To me, it is a grave insult.
I tried, even so, to work out the dispute on the rules issue with Arathorn, but I have come to the conclusion that the real dispute is not about the issue at all, but about control. Given the chance to confront the rules issue, Arathorn passed that up to engage in a pure power struggle. In place of presenting his case on the issue, he substituted railing against the idea of having to persuade me of his case. He preferred the issue of my authority over the issue of the rule he was supposedly concerned about most. To me, it looks like he made the decision that there could be no legitimate reasons for disagreeing with him, therefore my reason must be corrupt, and he started acting to take control. Since I see the issue as about control, this became a confidence crisis for me. I did not specifically call for a vote to be held, because I knew I was holding myself to the highest standard. Even one additional vote of no confidence would see me resign this responsibility. I believed I had the right stand on the issue and had made enough of a case to garner unanimous support. Well... I didn't garner much support at all, proactively. Only Gris and Sulla spoke out. I did not suffer any other votes of no confidence, though. Arathorn had overplayed his hand.
Fast forward to Arathorn's return. Here's someone who has made serious trouble for me. He's also made many positive contributions. I had specific cause to distrust him, that he would step in once again and make trouble. That turned out to be justified, because that's precisely what took place. But there was also the chance we could smoothe it out and come to an understanding. I thought it was worth trying. I was willing to take that risk ONLY because I had trust in the rest of you to support me as having the final authority over what, after all, was my own SG series.
RBE is not the Epics. The Epics would genuinely suffer if a competing tournament sprang up, so more care has to be taken there to satisfy a wider set of needs and demands. Succession games are a different story. They are a smaller affair, requiring less investment, less maintenance, and less of the players' collective energy. I presumed that if folks wanted an SG run differently, they'd go off and start their own. Happens all the time. Why would anybody give me grief over RBE?
Well, apparently there is a reason. Prestige. I didn't start these games for prestige. I started them for love of the game and an urge to seek more challenge. The prestige seems to have followed of its own accord, bringing side effects with it, both welcome and unwelcome effects. Now the series is "worth something" on its own merit, and that gives folks a target of something they can step in to and try to take over, to take someone else's work away from them and reshape it to their own likings. Well the right way to run your own show is to go build your own from the ground up. A certain amount of tension over something valuable is only to be expected, but once again I TRUSTED all of you to help me take good care of it.
I gave Arathorn his opportunity. What he chose to do with it was to step in and take charge. That, too, was OK with me at first. If he could run a good show, I didn't need to be in control of everything, and I thought that was the best possible show of good faith from me. It went wrong in a hurry, though. When I offered my input on the game settings, he did not respond well in my view. I was back to distrust in him quickly, and I decided to intervene. More specifically, I came to the conclusion that I had to demonstrate to Arathorn that my leadership here was not a dictatorship, but one embraced by all the players of their own free choosing. I saw that as the best hope for avoiding further power struggles with him, as well the fact that I did not have the juice to be wasting on those struggles. I laid my entire position on the line by stepping in in a way that would not, could not allow for any more debate. That's an extremely risky position in which to place myself, but I trusted you all to respond carefully. There is no standing on the sidelines for the veterans. New players, yes, they bear no responsibility to a prior unresolved dispute in which they had no part. I hold no grievance toward any of them. The rest of you... bear some responsibility. Many of you did not get the chance after I applied the brakes to realize there was a crisis. It blew up quickly. If I had made a more clear call for help, taken the time to better frame my position and what I expected from you all, allowed for knuckleheads to cast ill-considered votes, and given you all time to think it through and respond, I might have gotten the response I needed. The problem is, I did not have the energy to lobby for support, and I especially did not have the heart to continue to fight against the way Arathorn portrays me. Even now, he is still distorting the facts about me by speculating about what's going on in my real life. My explosion here is not about real life. I am not dumping a load of someone else's muck on all of you here. My hard feelings about things going in Civ III are about things going on in Civ III. Imagine that!
I made my choice to show Arathorn that my position here was supported. I needed support right then, with no further debate. I was counting on unanimous support. I believed I deserved it and would get it. Clearly, I was mistaken.
(continued)...
I went far out of my way to set up checks and balances for the Epics. I did not do so for RBE. The Epics are a large enough venture that they require all the participation they can get in order to succeed. If another tournament formed up because a group of Epics players disagreed with how things were being run and went off to start their own venture, if ANY Epics players left RBCiv to go with them, the Epics would suffer. Folks have only so much free time to play Civ III -- some may even be spending more than they should be -- so there is a competition factor in play. The CF GOTM is poorer off for not having Sulla there any more. All the players who played GOTM, or who would play it if the Epics didn't exist, are assets that GOTM lost out on for not meeting the needs of these players. While I have always had a specific vision for the Epics, the tournament is meant to be inclusive, to meet a community need, to attract as many good folks as we can get.
I could have carried out my vision as a true monarchy. I could have run the tournament from the warpcore; I have the means. I could have done all the site work, made all the decisions, dictated the rules, done all the maintenance. I might not have as many participants, but I would have had some just by offering a product some would desire to consume. If I wanted absolute control, I could have had it. Instead I sought to collaborate with Charis, to assemble the thing together. I did so in part because I know my own limits, know that I can't achieve as much on my own as I can with a network of cooperation and support. When he opted out, I did the assembly by myself after all, but I left plenty of room in the power structure for others. KoP and Gris were willing to host, and they worked with me on organizing the site. We had a few disagreements, but we worked out compromises. Putting the Epics in the hands of a host, and sharing the work load, authority and rewards with them, was a specific choice by me to build community faith. There would be a check on my authority, folks who could apply the brakes if they thought I went off track, as well as partners who take care of some of the work, leaving me to focus on the areas where my talents shine. We placed the tournament into a position where we would all mutually need one another, especially those of us running the show. There's a mechanism for sponsoring games, and a separate mechanism for running the official schedule. I've taken community input at every turn. I've worked damn hard to bring about both a vision (and stick to it enough to make it worthwhile) and to include the players in the process, to invest them with a sense of belonging, that their participation is important to the success of the whole tournament.
The monarchy quip is a slap in the face to all my efforts. To me, it is a grave insult.
I tried, even so, to work out the dispute on the rules issue with Arathorn, but I have come to the conclusion that the real dispute is not about the issue at all, but about control. Given the chance to confront the rules issue, Arathorn passed that up to engage in a pure power struggle. In place of presenting his case on the issue, he substituted railing against the idea of having to persuade me of his case. He preferred the issue of my authority over the issue of the rule he was supposedly concerned about most. To me, it looks like he made the decision that there could be no legitimate reasons for disagreeing with him, therefore my reason must be corrupt, and he started acting to take control. Since I see the issue as about control, this became a confidence crisis for me. I did not specifically call for a vote to be held, because I knew I was holding myself to the highest standard. Even one additional vote of no confidence would see me resign this responsibility. I believed I had the right stand on the issue and had made enough of a case to garner unanimous support. Well... I didn't garner much support at all, proactively. Only Gris and Sulla spoke out. I did not suffer any other votes of no confidence, though. Arathorn had overplayed his hand.
Fast forward to Arathorn's return. Here's someone who has made serious trouble for me. He's also made many positive contributions. I had specific cause to distrust him, that he would step in once again and make trouble. That turned out to be justified, because that's precisely what took place. But there was also the chance we could smoothe it out and come to an understanding. I thought it was worth trying. I was willing to take that risk ONLY because I had trust in the rest of you to support me as having the final authority over what, after all, was my own SG series.
RBE is not the Epics. The Epics would genuinely suffer if a competing tournament sprang up, so more care has to be taken there to satisfy a wider set of needs and demands. Succession games are a different story. They are a smaller affair, requiring less investment, less maintenance, and less of the players' collective energy. I presumed that if folks wanted an SG run differently, they'd go off and start their own. Happens all the time. Why would anybody give me grief over RBE?
Well, apparently there is a reason. Prestige. I didn't start these games for prestige. I started them for love of the game and an urge to seek more challenge. The prestige seems to have followed of its own accord, bringing side effects with it, both welcome and unwelcome effects. Now the series is "worth something" on its own merit, and that gives folks a target of something they can step in to and try to take over, to take someone else's work away from them and reshape it to their own likings. Well the right way to run your own show is to go build your own from the ground up. A certain amount of tension over something valuable is only to be expected, but once again I TRUSTED all of you to help me take good care of it.
I gave Arathorn his opportunity. What he chose to do with it was to step in and take charge. That, too, was OK with me at first. If he could run a good show, I didn't need to be in control of everything, and I thought that was the best possible show of good faith from me. It went wrong in a hurry, though. When I offered my input on the game settings, he did not respond well in my view. I was back to distrust in him quickly, and I decided to intervene. More specifically, I came to the conclusion that I had to demonstrate to Arathorn that my leadership here was not a dictatorship, but one embraced by all the players of their own free choosing. I saw that as the best hope for avoiding further power struggles with him, as well the fact that I did not have the juice to be wasting on those struggles. I laid my entire position on the line by stepping in in a way that would not, could not allow for any more debate. That's an extremely risky position in which to place myself, but I trusted you all to respond carefully. There is no standing on the sidelines for the veterans. New players, yes, they bear no responsibility to a prior unresolved dispute in which they had no part. I hold no grievance toward any of them. The rest of you... bear some responsibility. Many of you did not get the chance after I applied the brakes to realize there was a crisis. It blew up quickly. If I had made a more clear call for help, taken the time to better frame my position and what I expected from you all, allowed for knuckleheads to cast ill-considered votes, and given you all time to think it through and respond, I might have gotten the response I needed. The problem is, I did not have the energy to lobby for support, and I especially did not have the heart to continue to fight against the way Arathorn portrays me. Even now, he is still distorting the facts about me by speculating about what's going on in my real life. My explosion here is not about real life. I am not dumping a load of someone else's muck on all of you here. My hard feelings about things going in Civ III are about things going on in Civ III. Imagine that!
I made my choice to show Arathorn that my position here was supported. I needed support right then, with no further debate. I was counting on unanimous support. I believed I deserved it and would get it. Clearly, I was mistaken.
(continued)...
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
I failed you all. I expected a certain level of support, but did not do enough to win that level of support. In that sense, this is my fault. On the other hand, you could have chosen to support me anyway. Each of you could have paid more attention, could have participated more, looked deeper, thought farther through the issues than you did, more carefully considered what was truly at stake, and chosen to trust me a little farther. The line that this is just a game is a lie, has always been a lie, and a dangerous lie at that. This is more than a game, it is also a community, filled with relationships, common commitments, and some responsibilities. What folks do here matters. It doesn't matter as much as many other things, but it still matters. To imply it doesn't, that is just one more insult.
"Et tu, Brute?" That's how I feel toward a certain friend right now, and to a lesser extent toward the lot of you. Fair of me? Surely not. None of you really owe me anything. This was not something you owed me, it was an opportunity. It was a chance to maintain what you had. If I needed to do more, to go farther, to win the unanimous support I expected, then the failing is mine. I delivered too little and expected too much, and for that I apoligize. However... I gave this all I had to give. If any of you expected more than that from me, you erred. If you thought I would be a limitless fountain of organization, tirelessly cleaning up every mess you made for me, you erred. If you thought that I could stand tall against any challenge, you erred. If you thought I didn't give any consideration to your wishes and needs, you erred. If you thought that only squeaky wheels need any grease, you erred. If you thought I did all of this work to have somebody else who has no respect for my work and no belief in my integrity step in and wrest control of the project away from me, you most certainly erred.
Good experiences in life do not grow on trees. You have to work to create them. A good marriage is a ton of work, and more than the majority of us can manage. Half (in America) end in complete failure, and most of the rest suffer great hardships in various forms. And that's just two people trying to get along. Only a small minorty manage to create an experience together that lives up to their hopes going in. Friendships are just as uncommon. If you go through life and make any real friends at all, you're ahead of the game. Well, a great gaming experience is likewise very rare. It's not about luck, it's about hard work. Everything of value in this life comes about only as a result of folks working to create it, to maintain it, to preserve it. I have occasionally encountered a gaming situation where I benefitted from someone else's hard work, but mostly I have had to forge my own experiences with a lot of effort. As many times as I've done it with as many different games, I'm very good at it now, but my talent and experience are not magic wands. They allow me to get more done, to achieve better results, but it still comes down to hard work.
Conventional wisdom in western civilization today suggests that we don't have enough grease to go around. We can only afford grease for the squeaky wheels. In my view, that's why the wagon breaks down so often. I disagree fundamentally with the premise. All the wheels need grease. If one squeaks a bit, you give it a little extra care, but if it keeps on squeaking and squeaking, the grease isn't doing any good, is it? If you then keep on greasing the squeaky wheel, neglecting all the others, the whole wagon breaks down. Then what? Sometimes it is in the best interests of the wagon to replace a squeaky wheel. Stop relying on it and put another one in there. I believe it is a good thing that we care, but I believe it is enormously unhealthy that we care too much. We care so much about accomodating the squeaky wheel that we neglect the ones that aren't squeaking, including those that may be in need of some grease but not willing to throw a fit to draw attention to that fact. Me, I value the quiet reliable wheels the most and go out of my way to keep them greased. The squeaky wheels don't like that, used to getting what they want any time they make noise. A pox on all their houses.
Were my expectations here too high? Did I ask too much of you? Demand too much trust with too little basis? Perhaps. I'm happy with the games, with the actual results. I understood when I took the leadership mantle that there would be costs to me. I'd have to spend the time to set things up. I'd have to spend the time to communicate what I was doing, and to a large extent also explain why. I knew that I would have to earn your trust. I presumed that you also knew you would have to earn mine.
I thought that I could get this job done to my satisfaction, and yours, within the limits of the resources I have available. That worked for a while, but now that the Prestige Factor has gone up, a lot of hackles are being raised. Folks have a problem with this or that rule. More players are interested in getting involved, and some of them want to change things around. Everyone is so concerned about welcoming Arathorn back that they've lost sight of what went wrong that led to his departure, so they give him a free pass on waltzing in here and taking over. I can't even try, peaceably, to exercise any influence on the game without Arathorn getting antsy and immediately talking about pulling out, nor can I attempt to reach an understanding, involving cronfronting the unresolved and still-volatile issues without having a whole list of other complaints thrown in my face. Well, no thanks. The costs have gone up too far. Maybe you all think you have the right to ask me to spell out, in minute detail, what my thought process is before you'll agree to support my decisions, but I can't function that way. I don't have that much time to give you for this venture, you have to meet me halfway. I'm not willing to settle for compromising with squeaky wheels just because they make a lot of noise. If they squeak because they need a little attention, I'm there. Let them present their case, like any of the rest of you have to do, if they want something changed. If they make noise just to get their way, to use aggression as a means to wear down opposition to their desires, I'm not going to tolerate it. It's only fun FOR ME if the wagon can roll down the hill quietly. I hold high standards for excellence, and I'm willing to do a lot of work to make the dreams come true, but an essential ingredient is the trust. We all have to do our part, so that if a time comes when we need to rely on one another, that we'll be there for each other. That's the only path I've ever found to reach the highest peaks.
I believe I've been more than sufficiently willing to grease all the wheels, squeaky and quiet alike, but some of you don't agree. You think I'm being too harsh, or unfair, if I hold all of you to the same standards. Now my trust is the one that is broken. I see it as unfair to everyone else, and a betrayal of the entire group, to let tantrum throwing dictate what the decisions will be, just so "we can all get along". You want to put that much grease to the squeaky wheel? All right, you guys can do that. I won't be there, but good luck.
The whole thing with Arathorn "feeling bad" about falsfire and Iteean... that's the squeaky wheel philosophy in motion. It puts "feelings" above fairness. It's a false idea. When you stop applying the same equal standard to everybody, it only sounds noble. But what about the quiet wheels? They get the shaft. I hate that. It angers me deeply. More to the point, I find it to be a stupidly unworkable policy on the grander scale. When the rewards go to those who squeak (not saying Iteean or falsfire squeaked here, they didn't; it was Arathorn conjuring that up as an issue)... When the rewards go to those who squeak, incentives are created. If the way to succeed is to make a stink, instead of being governed by the same rules that apply to everybody, you're going to end up with chaos. I don't lead that way. I care about the feelings of ALL my players, not just those who make a lot of noise. I care about the noisemakers, too -- but I try to make it clear to them that there are limits on how much noise they can afford to make before they lose my trust.
When Arathorn started in on the whole "feeling bad" thing, that was just one more way for him to come in here and take over. My philosophy of encouraging adherence to rules and standards (which by the way is intended most of all to protect the interests of the quiet wheels among us) got trampled. Many of you agree with his thinking, though. You're upset with me for confronting squeaky wheels, for lacking compassion for the squeaky wheels, for being too harsh on squeaky wheels, etc.
This is a good group. I like all of you, and that does not exclude Arathorn. What more is there to say? I did the best I could.
Like it or not, there was a power struggle here, an adversarial debate about leadership style and philosophy, and I've lost it. I've lost it by way of surrender. I'm not willing to pay this price. The struggle started at the Epics and carried over to here. I fought that battle both times because I believed that everybody participating was looking to me to carry out the vision they had signed on for in the first place, and that that vision was being placed in jeopardy. Watching many of you bend over backward to accomodate Arathorn in this venture is just too much for me. It's not that Arathorn doesn't deserve the welcome; it's that he did not deserve special treatment. He got an unfair share of the concern and support by throwing a tantrum. I'm just not happy with any of this. You have all collectively rewarded him for tearing into me at RBCiv. I find that maddeningly intolerable and, yes, I view it as a betrayal. Now I've gone and made a whole lot of noise, myself. Or rather, I've simply broken down for a lack of greasing, and the resulting crash of the whole wagon has made a lot of noise. I'm sorry I didn't squeak enough to avoid this fate -- you are all clearly willing to come to my aid if I squeak more -- but that just isn't my style. It's not fair to expect help and support you don't ask for, I know, but there's a quiet way to ask and a loud way to demand. I -did- ask. I needed your support without having to get too loud about it, and... in this case, it didn't work out successfully.
Where we go from here, I don't know, but I'm done with RBE, probably for keeps. I'm also in the process of re-evaluating my responsibilities to the Epics, but I have not made any decisions there. As you can all see by my postings in regard to Epic Seventeen, I have not gone off the deep end. I'm not breaking down in real life, and I'm not a raving lunatic. I just happen to believe this community needs to rethink a few things. How much do you people value your Civ III community activity? You'll have to decide that for yourselves. The RBCiv community has had enough care going into it to keep it growing, but how much room for error it has in regard to discord is apparently less than any of us imagined.
- Sirian
"Et tu, Brute?" That's how I feel toward a certain friend right now, and to a lesser extent toward the lot of you. Fair of me? Surely not. None of you really owe me anything. This was not something you owed me, it was an opportunity. It was a chance to maintain what you had. If I needed to do more, to go farther, to win the unanimous support I expected, then the failing is mine. I delivered too little and expected too much, and for that I apoligize. However... I gave this all I had to give. If any of you expected more than that from me, you erred. If you thought I would be a limitless fountain of organization, tirelessly cleaning up every mess you made for me, you erred. If you thought that I could stand tall against any challenge, you erred. If you thought I didn't give any consideration to your wishes and needs, you erred. If you thought that only squeaky wheels need any grease, you erred. If you thought I did all of this work to have somebody else who has no respect for my work and no belief in my integrity step in and wrest control of the project away from me, you most certainly erred.
Good experiences in life do not grow on trees. You have to work to create them. A good marriage is a ton of work, and more than the majority of us can manage. Half (in America) end in complete failure, and most of the rest suffer great hardships in various forms. And that's just two people trying to get along. Only a small minorty manage to create an experience together that lives up to their hopes going in. Friendships are just as uncommon. If you go through life and make any real friends at all, you're ahead of the game. Well, a great gaming experience is likewise very rare. It's not about luck, it's about hard work. Everything of value in this life comes about only as a result of folks working to create it, to maintain it, to preserve it. I have occasionally encountered a gaming situation where I benefitted from someone else's hard work, but mostly I have had to forge my own experiences with a lot of effort. As many times as I've done it with as many different games, I'm very good at it now, but my talent and experience are not magic wands. They allow me to get more done, to achieve better results, but it still comes down to hard work.
Conventional wisdom in western civilization today suggests that we don't have enough grease to go around. We can only afford grease for the squeaky wheels. In my view, that's why the wagon breaks down so often. I disagree fundamentally with the premise. All the wheels need grease. If one squeaks a bit, you give it a little extra care, but if it keeps on squeaking and squeaking, the grease isn't doing any good, is it? If you then keep on greasing the squeaky wheel, neglecting all the others, the whole wagon breaks down. Then what? Sometimes it is in the best interests of the wagon to replace a squeaky wheel. Stop relying on it and put another one in there. I believe it is a good thing that we care, but I believe it is enormously unhealthy that we care too much. We care so much about accomodating the squeaky wheel that we neglect the ones that aren't squeaking, including those that may be in need of some grease but not willing to throw a fit to draw attention to that fact. Me, I value the quiet reliable wheels the most and go out of my way to keep them greased. The squeaky wheels don't like that, used to getting what they want any time they make noise. A pox on all their houses.
Were my expectations here too high? Did I ask too much of you? Demand too much trust with too little basis? Perhaps. I'm happy with the games, with the actual results. I understood when I took the leadership mantle that there would be costs to me. I'd have to spend the time to set things up. I'd have to spend the time to communicate what I was doing, and to a large extent also explain why. I knew that I would have to earn your trust. I presumed that you also knew you would have to earn mine.
I thought that I could get this job done to my satisfaction, and yours, within the limits of the resources I have available. That worked for a while, but now that the Prestige Factor has gone up, a lot of hackles are being raised. Folks have a problem with this or that rule. More players are interested in getting involved, and some of them want to change things around. Everyone is so concerned about welcoming Arathorn back that they've lost sight of what went wrong that led to his departure, so they give him a free pass on waltzing in here and taking over. I can't even try, peaceably, to exercise any influence on the game without Arathorn getting antsy and immediately talking about pulling out, nor can I attempt to reach an understanding, involving cronfronting the unresolved and still-volatile issues without having a whole list of other complaints thrown in my face. Well, no thanks. The costs have gone up too far. Maybe you all think you have the right to ask me to spell out, in minute detail, what my thought process is before you'll agree to support my decisions, but I can't function that way. I don't have that much time to give you for this venture, you have to meet me halfway. I'm not willing to settle for compromising with squeaky wheels just because they make a lot of noise. If they squeak because they need a little attention, I'm there. Let them present their case, like any of the rest of you have to do, if they want something changed. If they make noise just to get their way, to use aggression as a means to wear down opposition to their desires, I'm not going to tolerate it. It's only fun FOR ME if the wagon can roll down the hill quietly. I hold high standards for excellence, and I'm willing to do a lot of work to make the dreams come true, but an essential ingredient is the trust. We all have to do our part, so that if a time comes when we need to rely on one another, that we'll be there for each other. That's the only path I've ever found to reach the highest peaks.
I believe I've been more than sufficiently willing to grease all the wheels, squeaky and quiet alike, but some of you don't agree. You think I'm being too harsh, or unfair, if I hold all of you to the same standards. Now my trust is the one that is broken. I see it as unfair to everyone else, and a betrayal of the entire group, to let tantrum throwing dictate what the decisions will be, just so "we can all get along". You want to put that much grease to the squeaky wheel? All right, you guys can do that. I won't be there, but good luck.
The whole thing with Arathorn "feeling bad" about falsfire and Iteean... that's the squeaky wheel philosophy in motion. It puts "feelings" above fairness. It's a false idea. When you stop applying the same equal standard to everybody, it only sounds noble. But what about the quiet wheels? They get the shaft. I hate that. It angers me deeply. More to the point, I find it to be a stupidly unworkable policy on the grander scale. When the rewards go to those who squeak (not saying Iteean or falsfire squeaked here, they didn't; it was Arathorn conjuring that up as an issue)... When the rewards go to those who squeak, incentives are created. If the way to succeed is to make a stink, instead of being governed by the same rules that apply to everybody, you're going to end up with chaos. I don't lead that way. I care about the feelings of ALL my players, not just those who make a lot of noise. I care about the noisemakers, too -- but I try to make it clear to them that there are limits on how much noise they can afford to make before they lose my trust.
When Arathorn started in on the whole "feeling bad" thing, that was just one more way for him to come in here and take over. My philosophy of encouraging adherence to rules and standards (which by the way is intended most of all to protect the interests of the quiet wheels among us) got trampled. Many of you agree with his thinking, though. You're upset with me for confronting squeaky wheels, for lacking compassion for the squeaky wheels, for being too harsh on squeaky wheels, etc.
This is a good group. I like all of you, and that does not exclude Arathorn. What more is there to say? I did the best I could.
Like it or not, there was a power struggle here, an adversarial debate about leadership style and philosophy, and I've lost it. I've lost it by way of surrender. I'm not willing to pay this price. The struggle started at the Epics and carried over to here. I fought that battle both times because I believed that everybody participating was looking to me to carry out the vision they had signed on for in the first place, and that that vision was being placed in jeopardy. Watching many of you bend over backward to accomodate Arathorn in this venture is just too much for me. It's not that Arathorn doesn't deserve the welcome; it's that he did not deserve special treatment. He got an unfair share of the concern and support by throwing a tantrum. I'm just not happy with any of this. You have all collectively rewarded him for tearing into me at RBCiv. I find that maddeningly intolerable and, yes, I view it as a betrayal. Now I've gone and made a whole lot of noise, myself. Or rather, I've simply broken down for a lack of greasing, and the resulting crash of the whole wagon has made a lot of noise. I'm sorry I didn't squeak enough to avoid this fate -- you are all clearly willing to come to my aid if I squeak more -- but that just isn't my style. It's not fair to expect help and support you don't ask for, I know, but there's a quiet way to ask and a loud way to demand. I -did- ask. I needed your support without having to get too loud about it, and... in this case, it didn't work out successfully.
Where we go from here, I don't know, but I'm done with RBE, probably for keeps. I'm also in the process of re-evaluating my responsibilities to the Epics, but I have not made any decisions there. As you can all see by my postings in regard to Epic Seventeen, I have not gone off the deep end. I'm not breaking down in real life, and I'm not a raving lunatic. I just happen to believe this community needs to rethink a few things. How much do you people value your Civ III community activity? You'll have to decide that for yourselves. The RBCiv community has had enough care going into it to keep it growing, but how much room for error it has in regard to discord is apparently less than any of us imagined.
- Sirian
smegged
Psi Cop
...but I'll attempt to make a start. I now realise that I jumped in too quickly. And yet I jumped in too slowly as well.
Let me explain. Griselda was correct in the idea behind her post. My initial response to Sirian's 16th post was too hasty, and yet too slow. Sirian had not received my support in the Epics forums. I very much regret this now. The problem was not lack of agreement, but lack of motivation to put that down in writing. I had not built the groundwork that I needed to post what I posted. Had I posted my support of Sirian when he needed it, then perhaps my post would have made more sense. I did not have the positive built up enough to introduce the negative criticisms. So in that regard I posted far too late.
However, in my eagerness to see Sirian and Arathorn getting along, I jumped in too quickly. Sirian is right when he writes:
I jumped in to try and keep the peace.
One of the biggest problems here for me is a real life issue. I have a good friend, whos personality is exactly like that of Arathorn. He is a very good friend, but tends to, like Arathorn, make unreasonable demands. He tries leading anything he is involved in, pulls out of anything when his preferences aren't agreed to, and makes unrealistic demands of people. One time he called my mother (who he hardly knows), and asked her to give him a lift so that he did not have to catch the bus (even though he had the money). My mother got extremely offended at this. But I am accustomed to his nuances, quirks and idiosyncracies. Most of the time if you ignor most of his demands by simply not saying anything, then the peace is kept, and everybody is happy.
And so I applied that real life experience on these forums. I saw Arathorn making some suggestions about personal preferences (which I did NOT see as excessive....perhaps due to my personal experience) and immediately lept in to try and keep the peace the best way I knew how. Well that backfired. Hideously. And it backfired so much that it did not only take me out, but a good portion of innocence bystanders. I really feel very sorry for Architect in particular, as he was very much looking forward to playing this game.
The truth was, I read more hostility in Sirian's 16th post than was there. But I am not the only one. Architect sensed it also, as did JMB. The truth is, I should have known better. I've been a friend of Sirian for a good while now, and have known him through his writings for a good year before that. So I *should* have known better. Arathorn read Sirian's post and saw in it what Sirian meant to say. He saw the middle-ground approach better than I did, and he also conceded that he was making more demands than I thought he was making. The only demand I saw him make was the one regarding a minor point in the rules (scroll ahead). The rest of the things I saw him say sounded (to me) as nothing more than suggestions. A little forceful perhaps, but not excessive as Sirian's 16th post indicated. I certainly would not have accused him of "politicking" as Sirian did.
But in the end, it does not matter who was right and who was wrong. In the end what matters is that damage has been done. The seeds of pain matured into full grown weeds, which has strangled the life of one of the most vibrant fruit producing trees in the neigbourhood.
I have no knowledge of what the phrase "Et tu, Brute" actually means, but if I'm not mistaken, I am the certain friend that you speak of. I hereby apologise, in front of the whole community for making you feel this way, and I hope that our friendship can survive a storm of this magnitude. The matter was between you and Arathorn, and I was stupid to jump in too early. I was very surprised to read that Arathorn admitted he was too demanding in his subsequent post. For whatever reason, he understood what you were saying better than I.
I for one believe that you CAN come back here Sirian. Nobody wishes to see you leave. I know that you wish to participate as more than a mere spectator. It is clear that you and Arathorn cannot get along. But he can be avoided quite easily. And I'm sure that after this incident he will avoid you. There may be another in the future that will cause you to leave for good, but life is about the moments. And there will be many moments between now and that point. Come back and share those moments. We all want to continue to taste the fruit that your tree produces.
And.... there is nothing more that I can say. I have apologised for the hurt that I have caused you, and admitted my mistake. I'll even use the line on you that brought your D2 page back into existance. Please don't punish the players because of your problems with a minority.
-Smegged
Let me explain. Griselda was correct in the idea behind her post. My initial response to Sirian's 16th post was too hasty, and yet too slow. Sirian had not received my support in the Epics forums. I very much regret this now. The problem was not lack of agreement, but lack of motivation to put that down in writing. I had not built the groundwork that I needed to post what I posted. Had I posted my support of Sirian when he needed it, then perhaps my post would have made more sense. I did not have the positive built up enough to introduce the negative criticisms. So in that regard I posted far too late.
However, in my eagerness to see Sirian and Arathorn getting along, I jumped in too quickly. Sirian is right when he writes:
I jumped in to try and keep the peace.
One of the biggest problems here for me is a real life issue. I have a good friend, whos personality is exactly like that of Arathorn. He is a very good friend, but tends to, like Arathorn, make unreasonable demands. He tries leading anything he is involved in, pulls out of anything when his preferences aren't agreed to, and makes unrealistic demands of people. One time he called my mother (who he hardly knows), and asked her to give him a lift so that he did not have to catch the bus (even though he had the money). My mother got extremely offended at this. But I am accustomed to his nuances, quirks and idiosyncracies. Most of the time if you ignor most of his demands by simply not saying anything, then the peace is kept, and everybody is happy.
And so I applied that real life experience on these forums. I saw Arathorn making some suggestions about personal preferences (which I did NOT see as excessive....perhaps due to my personal experience) and immediately lept in to try and keep the peace the best way I knew how. Well that backfired. Hideously. And it backfired so much that it did not only take me out, but a good portion of innocence bystanders. I really feel very sorry for Architect in particular, as he was very much looking forward to playing this game.
The truth was, I read more hostility in Sirian's 16th post than was there. But I am not the only one. Architect sensed it also, as did JMB. The truth is, I should have known better. I've been a friend of Sirian for a good while now, and have known him through his writings for a good year before that. So I *should* have known better. Arathorn read Sirian's post and saw in it what Sirian meant to say. He saw the middle-ground approach better than I did, and he also conceded that he was making more demands than I thought he was making. The only demand I saw him make was the one regarding a minor point in the rules (scroll ahead). The rest of the things I saw him say sounded (to me) as nothing more than suggestions. A little forceful perhaps, but not excessive as Sirian's 16th post indicated. I certainly would not have accused him of "politicking" as Sirian did.
But in the end, it does not matter who was right and who was wrong. In the end what matters is that damage has been done. The seeds of pain matured into full grown weeds, which has strangled the life of one of the most vibrant fruit producing trees in the neigbourhood.
I have no knowledge of what the phrase "Et tu, Brute" actually means, but if I'm not mistaken, I am the certain friend that you speak of. I hereby apologise, in front of the whole community for making you feel this way, and I hope that our friendship can survive a storm of this magnitude. The matter was between you and Arathorn, and I was stupid to jump in too early. I was very surprised to read that Arathorn admitted he was too demanding in his subsequent post. For whatever reason, he understood what you were saying better than I.
I for one believe that you CAN come back here Sirian. Nobody wishes to see you leave. I know that you wish to participate as more than a mere spectator. It is clear that you and Arathorn cannot get along. But he can be avoided quite easily. And I'm sure that after this incident he will avoid you. There may be another in the future that will cause you to leave for good, but life is about the moments. And there will be many moments between now and that point. Come back and share those moments. We all want to continue to taste the fruit that your tree produces.
And.... there is nothing more that I can say. I have apologised for the hurt that I have caused you, and admitted my mistake. I'll even use the line on you that brought your D2 page back into existance. Please don't punish the players because of your problems with a minority.
-Smegged
