Timer dicussion

[vranasm]

well if we percieve the plako rulings not based solely on agreed rules as such a big problem... we will have to bring the issue up sooner or later and some teams maybe change their mind...

the thing here is that the citation is (if I got it right) based on leaked PM?

I know Plako that you read this, maybe you should state this one openely in the thread which read every team?

Seems to me that it will be the issue if we decline your position and every team will (logically) ask why.

Maybe best would be to vote our team for our position and if the result would be "no to plako", plako should get some time before we open the issue....

Seems to me like it's pretty delicate issue... and Sommers have some great points against unclear rulings and right now I am on the side of asking other members of our forum...

 

[Aivoturso]

@Sommerswerd, I think that this is a out of game issue but it is still important not to annoy others. What I am afraid of is not that other teams do something rash in-game if they get annoyed to our reluctance in this issue. What I am afraid of is that if the other teams get annoyed on how this game is administrated, they might drop out and we can kiss this game good bye. The risk is very real if we encounter an issue requiring admin arbitration and we'll have first keep the game paused for three weeks before we can agree on admin. Therefore any solution to this issue needs to be relatively fast (say, in weeks from now instead of months). Personally I don't have any objections against Plako taking over as admin so that is my preferred solution.

 

[tobiasn]

First of all I'm glad that we discuss a real issue and not someone's postcount.

I suspect that you're reading too much into plako's comment about the rules. They're already pretty extensive, and a new admin will not be able to willy nilly go about and change the ruleset as he sees fit.

How I read plako is that he will admin by the book, but if something is not governed by the rules, or we didn't foresee some fringe issue that might arise, where the rules are insufficient or ineffective, he'll be fair.

That's incidentally also the basic fundament of all western legal systems; you rule by the law, but the law is not your only source/legal fundament. As an old law student, this resonates with me - it's actually reassuring that a new admin also will use common sense.

As for the argument that Yossa made. Sommers, he did NOT say that it would hurt us in-game, he said that the other teams would not like a new candidate now. I think he's right about that.

If this will have an in-game effect, I don't know, but basic human psychology kinda suggest it will have some impact, but at this point in the game I hardly think we lose or gain friends over this issue. If a situation arise and we don't have an admin, that might be different.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What I am afraid of is that if the other teams get annoyed on how this game is administrated, they might drop out and we can kiss this game good bye.

There is no danger of any team dropping out of the game because of r_rolo's absence or because of the fact that Plako has not been named admin. No team has threatened that or even implied that.

The risk is very real if we encounter an issue requiring admin arbitration and we'll have first keep the game paused for three weeks before we can agree on admin.

OK... But what about my suggestion that IF AND ONLY IF this hypothetical doomsday scenario comes up where we need an emergency admin decision we just appoint Plako as the arbiter? Doesn't that resolve your concern without any need for making Plako the admin right this instant?

I suspect that you're reading too much into plako's comment about the rules. They're already pretty extensive, and a new admin will not be able to willy nilly go about and change the ruleset as he sees fit.

See we disagree here. Plako has been very clear that he will ignore rules as he sees fit if he feels they are unfair. And he has not backed off from his position, not one inch. All that is happening is everyone else is just choosing to hear what they want to hear despite what he has said, because they want to feel the comfort of somebody wearing the mayor's sash around his waist.

How I read plako is that he will admin by the book, but if something is not governed by the rules, or we didn't foresee some fringe issue that might arise, where the rules are insufficient or ineffective, he'll be fair.

See that's a perfect example of what I mean... Plako never said any of that. Plako never said "I Will Admin by the Book"... That's just how you are CHOOSING to read his comments despite the fact that he directly contradicts your chosen interpretation. I think that you are making this choice because choosing to interpret him that way allows you to reach the result that you want.

That's incidentally also the basic fundament of all western legal sys ...

?? The ba... I'm going to resist the enormous temptation to go off on this tangent with you...

Sommers, he did NOT say that it would hurt us in-game, he said that the other teams would not like a new candidate now. I think he's right about that.

I think he is right as well. You missed my point, which is that I said earlier that other teams would not like us suggesting an RB admin, to which Yossa replied that the teams would separate in game feelings from out of game feelings. Now he is arguing the opposite. If not then why does it matter? In other words, if their out-of-game irritation at us for suggesting a different admin than Plako (Or just staying silent) will not manifest in the form of in-game action... Then who cares? The only reason to mention them "not liking it" is to imply that there will be some sort of in-game consequence.

 

[tobiasn]

@Sommers, thanks for not going down the tangent. That would be the biggest off-topic debacle, like, ever. English being my second language definitely does not help here, but basically what I meant was that not all "current law" (direct translation from norwegian.. basically means what's legal or not) is written law. I think a good example from the US is Roe vs Wade. You can definitely question whether it is THE fundament, but it is an important property of western legal systems.

Re the "like not like" discussion: I think the other teams doesn't care whether he's percieved as RB or not, I just don't think they'll like that we suggest a new candidate now, regardless of who that candidate might be. That's what Yossa is getting at - the timing of it. Not the candidacy itself. So it's not an opposite argument, it's a supporting one.

See that's a perfect example of what I mean... Plako never said any of that. Plako never said "I Will Admin by the Book"... That's just how you are CHOOSING to read his comments despite the fact that he directly contradicts your chosen interpretation. I think that you are making this choice because choosing to interpret him that way allows you to reach the result that you want.

No it's the other way around I support him because that's the way I interpret him. It's an important difference there.

On a general note, Sommers, I try to take care to not put words in your mouth - I respect that we differ in opinion, and as you saw earlier I tried to find a consensus on this. I would appreciate if you in the future could try and extend the same courtesy to me and others - to not try and twist our words or try to find hidden agendas. I don't have any, tbh. I'm just trying to clarify what I mean in the best way possible.

 

[plako]

Clearly you've couple of members who don't trust my judgment or fairness. It is now time to make your team desicion concerning it. I've nothing further to add what I've already said.

 

[2metraninja]

Hearing all the opinions lately, I think I have come to realization.

I think I was the first to suggest you, Plako as co-admin. Back then I did it as common sense and being told you are just person. But now I really need to hear non-elusive answer from you if you are going to overrule agreed on rule from the rule-set of the game to make my opinion on the case.

For the record, to me this is purely organizational matter. And the dangers for the game from mid-game rule-set changes from new appointed admin are absolutely not lesser than postponing appointing admin if having one is not urgently required.

 

[YossarianLives]

??? Self-serving mental flip-flop? Where do you even come up with this Sommerswerd?

As tobiasn already pointed out, I am not arguing that we will suffer in-game consequences for the way we vote, however we end up deciding. All I am saying is that the other teams might be annoyed that we have another suggestion, but we delayed bringing it up until we were 80% decided on a course of action. It hurts our image as the organizers and hosts of this game. Who cares, you ask? Maybe you don't but I just think that we should have participated in this discussion and if we declined to do so we don't really have a leg to stand on when we try to bring up new options at this late stage.

I am not trying to force Plako on us as the admin, I am just trying to fix the problem of this game not having an admin. DaveMcW seems like a fine option. We would have had a much better shot at convincing the other teams to accept him if we were able to present him as an option before everyone had already approved Plako. I also think that your idea of "conditionally" appointing Plako as admin to step in only if we need an emergency admin decision is a fine suggestion. I wish we had brought it to the table before most teams had already cast a vote.

Plako has answered our question about whether there are any set rules he thinks he would overturn. He said no, but he is not going to use his time thinking up hypothetical situations where he might potentially feel that the rules create an unfair situation. To me that is reasonable and satisfactory, but I understand that we disagree on that point.

I also disagree with your assessment that the votes of the other teams are irrelevant.

 

[Caledorn]

I would like to point out that with WPC also voting yes today, CFC is the only team who have not cast a vote, and that there still isn't even a poll on the matter in the team forums.

 

[tobiasn]

I did suggest a simple, binary poll some days ago - Yes to Plako as co-admin, or No, expore other options. This way of voting will make us able to actually participate in the public forum.

 

[Calis]

Go ahead and confirm plako, before it gets even more embarrassing for us...

 

[2metraninja]

Plako has answered our question about whether there are any set rules he thinks he would overturn. He said no, but he is not going to use his time thinking up hypothetical situations where he might potentially feel that the rules create an unfair situation. To me that is reasonable and satisfactory, but I understand that we disagree on that point.

This is not the case. I went back and read all the posts Plako made on the matter. If it is hard to say: "I will not change the rules and judge as fair as I can following those already voted on and chosen rules" I want to know why is this? If there are rules which Plako want to see changed, I want to hear that. Last game which died was the preparation game for this very same ISDG, where LP wanted something to be changed in the rules (the official rules of ISDG) and he put condition "either the rules are changed, either I quit", but then the other side in the argument said: "I wont play if a rule change is forced upon me in the middle of the game" and then the game just died. I want to avoid such scenario at all costs for the real ISDG. If it takes to ask for unambiguous assurances from Plako, I will ask for them just to avoid situation where we say: "but you did not told us" and he says: "I never said I will not either".

 

[plako]

Yet again. There is no rule at the moment I want changed and it is highly likely following the rules to the letter is the fairest thing to do in all scenarios coming. Now it is just a matter whether you trust my word or not and apparently there are few who don't. You're entitled to have your doubts, but if there is serious opposition in your team thinking like this I'm not sure I really can take this position.

 

[2metraninja]

I do trust your word, just wanted to hear you giving it.

I if though you are not worthy, I would have not discussed the matter at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

DaveMcW seems like a fine option. We would have had a much better shot at convincing the other teams to accept him if we ...

See the thing is, that we don't have to "convince" anyone of anything. We hold all the cards here. Plako will not accept the position without unanimous consent. We are the "hosts" as you have said before. All we have to do is say,

"Team CFC can not approve Plako at this time. We are in the process of discussing the matter within our team and we will post when the discussion is finished."

Of course there will be all sorts of RB wailing and whining and hand wringing and tooth gnashing. Of course there will be people posting demanding to know why. We just ignore them, and we complete the discussion on our team while we contact other prospective admins. Once that process is complete, we decide whether to go with one of them or with Plako, and we inform the rest of the teams. They can accept our decision, or we can keep status quo. Either is fine because there is no issue on the table that need urgent admin action. If some emergency does come up. We appoint Plako provisionally. What is wrong with that?

The rest is just quote and respond to tobiasn and Yossa:

Spoiler :

@Sommers, thanks for not going down the tangent. That would be the biggest off-topic debacle, like, ever. English being my second language definitely does not help here, but basically what I meant was ...

But, but, but...... 1...2...3...Breathe again, I will resist, despite you continuing on this

I just don't think they'll like that we suggest a new candidate now, regardless of who that candidate might be. That's what Yossa is getting at - the timing of it. Not the candidacy itself. So it's not an opposite argument, it's a supporting one.

If you look back at what I said, you will see that I agree with that. We are all in agreement that they wont like it. Not exactly sure why you (both) keep trying to explain this to me when I have said multiple times that I agree with you. My point was, (and continues to be) that you are trying to have it both ways. When I said supporting Plako would irritate the other players I was told that was an inadvisable position. Now I am being told that opposing Plako is an inadvisable position because it will irritate the other players. It seems simple to me, but maybe I am just not explaining it clearly?

No it's the other way around I support him because that's the way I interpret him. It's an important difference there.

Fair enough. I understand you. I just disagree. What I said about your motivations for you position was speaking more to my opinion of what was happening on a subconscious level, which is afterall (since I'm talking about what I think is going on in your head) pure speculation. If you regard that as "seeing hidden agendas" or "twisting your words" or "putting words in your mouth"... well... I've been accused of that quite frequently and frankly a lot worse. I have no problem with people analyzing what I say and speculating on my meaning or intents. AFAIC that is part of normal discussion.

Where do you even come up with this Sommerswerd?

I watch/read/listen to a lot of Political media.

All I am saying is that the other teams might be annoyed that we have another suggestion, but we delayed bringing it up until we were 80% decided on a course of action.

OK... and so what? We don't make the suggestion? We don't say anything if we think the others won't like it?

And they don't like it so... they are going to do what about it? Because that is my point. What is the consequence? Because if there is no consequence then their irritation is irrelevant, and thus their irritation should have no bearing on our decision. As I have said multiple times. I agree with you that they will be irritated, but I just don't think it has any tangible consequence for us.

It hurts our image as the organizers and hosts of this game.

I could equally say that not naming DaveMCW (or whoever) as the new admin hurts our image. If we are talking about image/prestige/role as hosts, you might say we have an obligation to present an alternative regardless of the "stage" as you refer to it. You keep focusing on this being "late" but all I ever wanted in this process was for our team to actually talk this out and reach some sort of consensus. We still didn't need to poll it, and I think that what the poll bears out is that the team is still divided and the poll was premature. So what if the other teams have decided. Their "decisions" are more of a "whatever, that's cool" sort of statement. They are not the "hosts." We as the hosts should be more deliberative.

I also disagree with your assessment that the votes of the other teams are irrelevant.

I am almost positive that you know full well that I was referring to the fact that the other teams don't have the full story and are voting based on incomplete information.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For starters I would poll just for the two binary alternatives "Plako as admin" or "Explore other opportunities" ...
Sounds ok?

As I said, I have been wanting to have the issue thoroughly discussed, which we have been doing, but I do agree that binary polls are the best and clearest.

I would like to point out that the current poll is not a binary poll. I have mentioned/complained about this before (how having the strawman or "abstain" option clouds the result) but I see that the current poll has a strawman again *sigh*

Anyway, I am bringing it up again for reference...

 

[Aivoturso]

If you look back at what I said, you will see that I agree with that. We are all in agreement that they wont like it. Not exactly sure why you (both) keep trying to explain this to me when I have said multiple times that I agree with you. My point was, (and continues to be) that you are trying to have it both ways. When I said supporting Plako would irritate the other players I was told that was an inadvisable position. Now I am being told that opposing Plako is an inadvisable position because it will irritate the other players. It seems simple to me, but maybe I am just not explaining it clearly?

I've been wondering this for a while, but when you put state your case that clearly it finally is obvious what the flaw in your argument is. The thing is that cause for possible in-game impact in the scenarios is not equivalent. When you think about the first scenario, your argument was that out-of-game action causes suspicion about our in-game allegiances impacting our in-game relations. In the second scenario, Yossa's argument was that out-of-game action causes out-of-game annoyance that can transfer into in-game irritation impacting our in-game relations. IMO, Yossa's claims are not contradictory at all. I think it is clear that suspecting in-game conspiracy if we suggest/support Plako is much more unlikely than irritation leaking from delaying a solution for a perceived problem in game maintenance.

I would like to point out that the current poll is not a binary poll. I have mentioned/complained about this before (how having the strawman or "abstain" option clouds the result) but I see that the current poll has a strawman again *sigh*

Anyway, I am bringing it up again for reference...

IMO, in most cases abstain option does not pollute the poll. Everyone has a default option to abstain by not voting since voting is not mandatory. Abstaining gives an option to state "I'm still around but I don't have strong opinion about the issue at hand".

 

[talonschild]

To be entirely fair, abstention does effectively mean consent with the majority, and back in the early days we did bandy about the "silence = consent" principle. So I suppose we could usually get away with no abstention option.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've been wondering this for a while, but when you put state your case that clearly it finally is obvious what the flaw in your argument is. The thing is that cause for possible in-game impact in the scenarios is not equivalent. When you think about the first scenario, your argument was that out-of-game action causes suspicion about our in-game allegiances impacting our in-game relations. In the second scenario, Yossa's argument was that out-of-game action causes out-of-game annoyance that can transfer into in-game irritation impacting our in-game relations. IMO, Yossa's claims are not contradictory at all. I think it is clear that suspecting in-game conspiracy if we suggest/support Plako is much more unlikely than irritation leaking from delaying a solution for a perceived problem in game maintenance.

Sorry, but saying that there is a difference between my argument against supporting plako in the first place and Yossa's current argument against opposing plako does not mean that the argument is flawed. I'm pointing out the similarities. The contadiction is based on the similarity, not the difference.

IMO, in most cases abstain option does not pollute the poll.

Then your opinion is wrong... Sorry again. And Im sorry to be a prick but this concept is far too simple to explain. It's like trying to explain why 1+1=2. If someone doesn't get it they just don't get it.

Anyway, how about answering my question rather that focusing on trying to find reasons to call my argument flawed? I asked you a question a while back that you never answered.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I would like to add that this whole discussion, while fun, is really not that important since there is no pressing admin decision on the table.

But I did notice however that we have been missing/not checking our diplo messages lately... I just worried that this debate is getting more focus than it deserves and is causing other things to get neglected... Just thought I remind us to keep our eye on the ball