First, I'd like to say I may have inadvertantly stepped into a couple things that were not my intention.
By Me, earier in this thread:
Eyrei, you are misguided if you take offense. The thread concerns mods and not you in particular. Tomorrow, you might not be a mod, and someone else would be. Ditto for Shaitan. You all should have thicker skin and think about the concept and process, not how individual threads and posts affect or do not affect your view, and if you take offense or not. We do not come to CFC and play Demo game to please you.
I really have
no idea about the lineage or longevity of the Mods, except for Duke of Marbrough (whom I know through Civ 2 stuff). Evidently, Shaitan and eyrei are new (from what was just posted), and my comments from earlier today were not meant to undermine or take away from their Mod & Admin power. I infer that there may have been some argument or sort of stuff in that vein in the past. But to me, a new guy, they are the mods (
the mods) and what I was trying to say (just so it was not taken wrong by anyone) was that Mods can and do change, move, whatever... and leaders (in real life, or mods at CFC) are going to take crap at times, that goes with the extra duty. But the important thing is that the position of Mod (e.g, the Civ3 mods) is a rather detached and objective thing, and should be kept separate from personal agendas (we all have agendas... its human nature). That statement, and my posts, were not meant to fuel any past stuff that may have gone on. I don't know what happenened in the past, but all I see is a nice, new game starting up, so I don't have that baggage.
BTW, it is kindof weird to see a game starting, and an actual Public Trial of a fellow member. My thought would be that it is too early to put people on trial. Actaully, I object to putting members on trial or public humiliation, but I will assume there is something in the constitution that allows it and others much more learned than me know what is going on. But it must have been for something in the past, which is why it's weird to be in a brand new game and seeing a Poll to vote on "sentencing" a past President.
And finally, if no insult was intended, why did you feel the need to make sure everyone knew you had softened things up
Because I wrote 2 posts, and noticed that Thunderfall had made a post about my posts. So I went back and made some changes, out of respect for what TF had said. He did not tell me exactly what to change, so I went back and made re-read my posts, and took out sentences and words. I posted the edit so people could be aware that I was attempting to consider additional input.
Finally, Shaitan and I have caught quite a bit of hell since we became mods, which was only a short time ago. We have been consistently baited by members of the game. What their motivations are I do not know. How do you expect us to react to people questioning our honesty and capabilities? Believe me, my skin is quite thick. It takes repeated insults to get through it, and I have found my patience tested quite a few times in the past few days. It is not the mods that are creating this atmosphere, it is all of us.
Sorry, Eyrei, my post was not a result of whatever was going on before. I joined the game, and actually expected to read some threads, help decide moves & constructions (e.g, vote & post ideas), and that sort of thing.
At any rate, as I said before, I'm not aware of the backgrounds... it's just a new, blank game from my perspective as a new citizen. My input is that I personally don't mind mods being part of the game, and even holding office... I just don't want the mod thing to cross over into routine game play (or appear that way
).
If anyone is grinding an axe on the 2 mods, then my post is not to help sharpen the axe... it is simply to give my own perception as a 6-hour Civ 3 Demo citizen.
This section of your post is horribly inaccurate. Please make sure you have your facts straight before you begin accusing people of things.
Then I do sincerely apologize for any inaccuracies. It was taken from the paragraph you said earlier in this thread, like:
"Those few who disagree are going to have to learn to live with it until such a time as they can get the majority of the citizens to agree with their point of view."
followed by:
"to do this, you must post your opinion occasionally, but I expect that there be a concrete reason to do so. "
This would not be too negative if it was just from an average citizen, but from a Mod, it means that someone else (a Mod) will be the one judging whether or not a poster can even have enough reason to post. The thread is obviously to discuss the topic of the first post, and so you said:
"So, if there is not particular reason this thread was opened, I think it should be closed."
Well, honestly, if I had been the thread starter, I'd be pretty insulted. Whether you intended or not, you are implying that the topic should not be discussed. But if it cannot be discussed, then it is a catch-22... you should not be allowing the citizens to get to agree with a point of view that you mentioned two sentences before.
This topic WAS discussed extensively before, and this game should not revolve around inflammatory discussions regarding what mods should and should not be able to do. Therefore I suggested we close this discussion until it becomes a problem before this thread becomes the problem. I did not close this thread.
Well, it makes much more sense to me when you word it like that. However, I do happen do disagree with avoiding an issue like that, and think if it's just met head-on and resolved, then it's done and no worries.
Starlifter, while I appreciate that your opinion is more objective than most, it is also based on a very small sample of posts, and lacks any realization of the history behind many of these conflicts and opinions.
True, it is based on a small percentage of posts. But that is also a good thing... should new people need to dig back and learn about all that stuff? I came there today to join up and start looking at screenshots, reading what's up, making votes on strategy, basically playing the game, though I did not realize the game had not yet actually started.
The tight leash you speak of is not held by the moderators, but by the players who developed these laws.
The tight leash I was talking about is not the big set of rules, constitution, etc. It was the close monitoring and feedback on things that set the tone for people (average citizens) to follow. Like the example for this thread, when the very first post pretty much torpedoes the thread from the outset. I myself had a negative feeling when starting to read the thread, after seeing the first reply, and in essense, was in a mindset that the first post was probably unworkable. I had to reread it and think about what it really meant, and realized I agreed with the thread's author, not the unworkability brought up in the 1st reply.
Or mainly, me. I am sorry, but I am rather irritated right now. I particularly dislike being accused of doing things that I did not do, and I dislike even more when further assumptions are made based on those false accusations. I appreciated starlifter's view as objective and useful until I was accused of being the cause of the discontent here.
Well, I apologize for anything false or even misleading. I am not saying that you are the cause of discontent, or even that there is necessarily "discontent". But whatever the past was, I personally don't care and I do not carry forward any discontent. I just want to play (and for me, learn) the game in a good atmosphere. I don't want to go back and figure out past conflicts, or take sides "for" or "against" people.
Whatever went before, who cares. Its a new game, new people are coming in, and we don't know about all the "past". You guys are the mods, and that's the way it should remain. One thing that cannot be said is that either of you ignore the game, neglect it, or don't care! So that is a huge asset.
If you all are new mods, then people that have been around (the players) should probably cut you guys some slack, as there is a learning curve at your end, too. And you're both obviously dedicated and responsive, since you've already replied in this thread and not closed it or gone off the deep end
.
by Danke:
When I joined Game 1 in the middle of Term 4, my first impression was of a fractious, divisive, complex, rash, and baiting populace.
An interesting insight! Well, again, I don't know about back then, but if there is more that new people should know, then maybe just a special thread explaining that the above sort of stuff is expected and normal.
by Shaitan:
We may not agree with starlifter's statements but he's giving us verbose feedback of what his initial impression of the game is. Right or wrong, that's the impression he's getting and could very well be shared by other new players.
I will definitely say I'm not omniscient, and certainly not infallible... but whatever was in the past, is past: it's a new game. And new people will likely join in, and maybe some attention to perceptions by newcomers (and Civ 3 vets) will help. It's strange that my first vote was asked for on some sort of Investigation thing, but there did not seem to be much to make a "conviction" on.
"I get the impression this Demo game is run with a tight fist, and there is little tolerance for dissenting opinion"
You will see very quickly that this is just about totally and completely 180 degrees off. We are blessed (or cursed?) with a load of very bright, oft-times opinionated players.
That's good to hear. As Eyrei pointed out, my perception is not based on all the prior stuff in the 1st Civ 3 demo game, or even on the "history" of whatever. It's a limited perspective, and I'm the new guy.
The rules are complex *because* people like Shaitan and Eyrei have spent hours debating to the nth degree how to best empower the citizenry and have, as much as possible, a game of laws, not opinions.
I will say this: it took some people an awful lot of work to make a comprehensive set of documents like that. The general arrangement and organization seems very good, too. And Shaitan's post for new people is particularly helpful.
Anyway, just to summarize my own POV:
1. I don't in any way imply our 2 mods should be dissed or replaced (so no one take my posts that way!), and support the mods who, like most mods, sometimes do a job that probably attracts flak.
2. I don't mind having mods play the game & even hold office.
3. By virture of their position, I think mods have an extra burden to keep the line between mod-dom and player-dom separate (even if it's just perception). An office-holding mod would be 3 things: a citizen, official, and Mod... so perceptions would be important and should not be ignored (I'm not referring to my perceptions alone, I mean players in general).
4. I agree with Chieftess' opening post, and it is not a mod-specific thing. That is, it has nothing to do with anyone in particular; its applicable to anyone.
5. Separation in mind, I personally don't object to Mods even holding office & that sort of stuff (assuming it is jake with the big set of rules). But then
6. Followership is important too. That means that we, the people, are responsible for helping both the elected people, as well as the mods, do a good job. If "stuff happens", everything can't just dumped on them.
Well, it's been an interesting first day in the Civ 3 Democracy game!
I don't want to change my Avatar. 
