Spirit of the Game Amendment

[Whomp]

Team K.I.S.S. would suggest expanded powers for the Admins through this amendment.

Spirit of the Game Amendment --This is a rule that is solely controlled by the administrators. The rule gives the adminstrators operational flexibility to punish a team or player for what is construed as the "unfun" or "unnecessary" element. Violation of this rule is a warning and then at the administrators discretion, authority and flexibility to get rid of "unfun elements" of the MTDG.

Could we vote on this?

 

[DaveShack]

I think this is probably already covered by the recent announcement from the moderators. If you have a specific "unfun element" in mind please bounce it off Rik first. (note I'm not necessarily referring to a person -- an action or pattern of behavior would also qualify) If it doesn't rise to the level that moderation is required, then you should bring it up with the admins who may already have the powers you want them to have.

 

[classical_hero]

Are we sure we want to give the three musketeers such powers?

 

[donsig]

Has anyone out there ever heard the old saying one man's trash is another man's treasure? Like trash and treasure, fun is a very subjective thing. If we go with the assumption that the players are playing the game to have fun then it surely follows that it is the players and not the admins who should be the ultimate judges of what is or isn't fun. I'm all for giving the admins power to get rid of those things we players collectively decide isn't fun. I'm very opposed to giving them the power to decide for us what is and isn't fun.

 

[Strider]

Has anyone out there ever heard the old saying one man's trash is another man's treasure? Like trash and treasure, fun is a very subjective thing. If we go with the assumption that the players are playing the game to have fun then it surely follows that it is the players and not the admins who should be the ultimate judges of what is or isn't fun. I'm all for giving the admins power to get rid of those things we players collectively decide isn't fun. I'm very opposed to giving them the power to decide for us what is and isn't fun.

Good Speech, and agreed.

I prefer it being handled by Rik better anyway. He actually has the power to do something.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yes, our job to is base our actions on what the teams decide for themselves, not for what *we* think is best.

 

[Whomp]

Fair enough. Trash and treasure it is.

 

[Provolution]

I agree with some of the points here.

Whomp got a very valid point on the fun and unfun here. But for arbitrating a strategy issue between two teams, when we come to strategy, it is probably best to find some decent objective criteria. I think that some teams may play this is as a "professional" succession game, where others run a different style, which is a question of team culture. We may risk of developing a ruleset more fitting to one side than the other, if arbitration is based on political condemnation based on well portrayed indignation. In soccer, one phenomenon is called filming, where the soccer-player feigns pain after an alleged fall. I see a lot of this "filming" in demogames, where some players exaggerate their presentation of harm incurred, in order to max out compensation in a following case. However, if everyone played it out in such a genteel and sportsmanslike spirit as Whomp here, I would back it 100 %.

However, as we got some rotten eggs in all baskets, it is safer to agree on rules everyone understands, and has a real sanction as part of it. I have seen too many cases of defamation and condemnation in several demogames, and being aware that some teams may or may not have a stronger clout in persuading admins for favorable rulings, we need to keep the rules clear, concise and applicable, not to say neutral, so the admins do not feel pushed to sway the outcome by either side where arbitration takes place.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

I think that some teams may play this is as a "professional" succession game, where others run a different style, which is a question of team culture. We may risk of developing a ruleset more fitting to one side than the other

This is the crux of the issue. Sufficient to say that the team cultures are different and that one ruleset will not fit all.

I prefer it being handled by Rik better anyway.

Me too. This is an issue that will not be resolved by legislation, but rather in game experience. Let the trash and treasure flow.

I suggest we all agree to the following:

A couple of months ago Thunderfall has graciously given you a special section of the CFC-forum for the Multi Team Democarcy Game. This gesture was to provide an environment for fun and competition. But mostly fun.

This game is to be played as friends out-game and as allies/enemies (whichever you prefer) in-game.

The good atmosphere of the MTDG is the highest goal. Any attempts to destroy the good atmosphere is a direct attack on the CFC-forum in total.

Therefore the moderating team has decided that from now on: "attempting to destroy the good atmosphere" is a bannable offense.

and let rik be the judge. I'm tired of all the verbage.

all hail the Rik

 

[Provolution]

Again, as long as someone does not feign and exaggerate indignation, condemnation and all the liberal political correctness terror that in general strangulate all exciting and creative statesmanship, I am ok. That means, as long as someone does not seek to insult other players, or as long as someone does not act out some dramaturgic display in out-of-game suffering to an in-game action, I am all ok. But really, I think that Rik meant to moderate away insults and outright cheating of the game, not to follow some unwritten rules for some special subcommunity flavor of how to play the game..