While We Wait: Part 2

[Insane_Panda]

A Victoria scenario of NES2 VI would own. Completely. Vicky would be much better suited to it aswell, due to the level of technology. You could have a grand campaign, starting at 1740, one right in the chaos, set in 1760 or so. One right before the second world war, in 1780 or so, and one right after.

I will admit, I have an obsession with NES2 VI, it being my best performance and due to France owning a good quarter to third of the world. Who knows though, if things go well enough in staznes...

 

[Niklas]

If people have so much in school that they can't send orders on time, they shouldn't sign up for play. This is particularly true for the board games. For regular NESes, if you are signed up and won't have time to send, the be responsible and tell the mod. How hard can it be?

 

[Dachs]

That\'s my own opinion - I have managed to squeeze orders in, and IMHO they show that I spent more than about three minutes typing them.

 

[tossi]

I always try to hit the deadline and if by some unpredictable I'm unable to get them in time, I will at least inform the mod, so that he knows what he is dealing with. Of course NESing is very time-consuming. I for one need hours to write my orders (sadly this doesn't really improve their quality). Maps, deals, spendings, formatting, spelling and worst of all, war, just take some time. If I still had school I wouldn't be able to fit NESing in my time table, and I wonder how everyone else does. Especially as I'm only participating in one single NES, while others can fill their signatures with their current games. Perhaps some people have overestimated their abilities. I think it is irresponsible to join a NES, if you will not be able to 100% commit yourself. You are troubling the mod and the players with such an behaviour and you are potentially withholding a nation from someone who would be able to put more commitment into it.

 

[Israelite9191]

Normally, I would be completely capable of sending all of my orders in on time every time. However, this week and nex week in particular I can't. I still have school (with an average of 5-8 hours of homework a night) and I still teach religious school on Sundays (5 hour commitment on Sunday, another few hours during the week preparing). In addition I have two APs to study for this week, which is the real killer. I also have a diagnosed neurological condition of chronic migranes, which means that from time to time I may be incapacitated for as long as a week before being able to function at all. Last semester I dropped out of NESing for, I believe, 5 months because of these myriad time consumptions. Basically, what I am saying is don't judge others until you have born their burden.

 

[Symphony D.]

Last semester I dropped out of NESing for, I believe, 5 months because of these myriad time consumptions. Basically, what I am saying is don't judge others until you have born their burden.

This argument, to me, doesn't follow. You were well aware of your own limitations and took action accordingly. That's what I'm advocating here. In fact, in that aspect, we appear to see eye-to-eye. It is the second half of that sentence I am in disagreement with.

Other people claim to be busy, yet do little to nothing to mitigate its effects on their sending orders. Why? We can draw two conclusions from such behavior: either they are irresponsible and unwilling to notify others of their commitments, or they are ignorant and unaware of their own capabilities and limitations. Neither is a valid excuse to those who are made to wait as a result.

It's not an issue of judgment. It is an issue of responsibility. It's a very simple equation: send orders when they're due, or leave the game. You don't go to school, you fail. You don't show up to work, you get fired. Why should NESing be any different? You don't meet the deadline, you get dropped. It's not a matter of superiority or inferiority or interpretation. All it boils down to is: if you can't do the work, don't pick it up in the first place, or make arrangements in advance.

Very few people have the good sense to do this. It is a lack of responsibility and courtesy which is rather distressing given this is a hobby people are choosing to partake in.

 

[Splime]

This argument, to me, doesn't follow. You were well aware of your own limitations and took action accordingly. That's what I'm advocating here. In fact, in that aspect, we appear to see eye-to-eye. It is the second half of that sentence I am in disagreement with.

Other people claim to be busy, yet do little to nothing to mitigate its effects on their sending orders. Why? We can draw two conclusions from such behavior: either they are irresponsible and unwilling to notify others of their commitments, or they are ignorant and unaware of their own capabilities and limitations. Neither is a valid excuse to those who are made to wait as a result.

It's not an issue of judgment. It is an issue of responsibility. It's a very simple equation: send orders when they're due, or leave the game. You don't go to school, you fail. You don't show up to work, you get fired. Why should NESing be any different? You don't meet the deadline, you get dropped. It's not a matter of superiority or inferiority or interpretation. All it boils down to is: if you can't do the work, don't pick it up in the first place, or make arrangements in advance.

Very few people have the good sense to do this. It is a lack of responsibility and courtesy which is rather distressing given this is a hobby people are choosing to partake in.

I agree that you shouldn't join if you don't have the time, but comparing an NES to work and school is horrible. If NESing were school or work, not nearly as many people would join. There should be at least some leniency, but not total relaxation. Tight timetables can be annoying when something pops up unexpectedly that stops the player from being able to participate. Stuff happens, and people shouldn't be punished for things they can't control at all.

 

[tossi]

Normally, I would be completely capable of sending all of my orders in on time every time. However, this week and nex week in particular I can't. I still have school (with an average of 5-8 hours of homework a night) and I still teach religious school on Sundays (5 hour commitment on Sunday, another few hours during the week preparing). In addition I have two APs to study for this week, which is the real killer. I also have a diagnosed neurological condition of chronic migranes, which means that from time to time I may be incapacitated for as long as a week before being able to function at all. Last semester I dropped out of NESing for, I believe, 5 months because of these myriad time consumptions. Basically, what I am saying is don't judge others until you have born their burden.

I didn't judge you at all, for I wasn't attacking you, nor anyone else in particular. Everybody must decide on his own if he is able to commit himself, however I don't have the impression (judging from diplo etc) as if you were playing half-hearted.

EDIT:

I agree that you shouldn't join if you don't have the time, but comparing an NES to work and school is horrible. If NESing were school or work, not nearly as many people would join. There should be at least some leniency, but not total relaxation. Tight timetables can be annoying when something pops up unexpectedly that stops the player from being able to participate. Stuff happens, and people shouldn't be punished for things they can't control at all.

IMHO tight timetables=fixed deadlines are actually a good thing, which greatly helps the players to plan ahead. For example one thing that I always liked about das NESes is, that you know when you have to get your orders in ( gmt +1 : 16:00 ) and you know that if you are too late you are too late. As a reward you will get the update on WedNESday. I always tried to finish my orders on Monday because you never know what might hold you back. And if I knew that I would be busy Monday I did most of the work on Sunday. It is very hard to plan in such a way if the deadline isn't set. Humans are by nature lazy asses and if you don't kick them and give them fixed timetables they will always belate!

 

[Splime]

By tight timetables I mean ones that have limited time, such as 24 hour or 48 hour ones. However, the lack of deadlines would be pretty bad.

 

[Symphony D.]

By tight timetables I mean ones that have limited time, such as 24 hour or 48 hour ones. However, the lack of deadlines would be pretty bad.

Deadlines should be and generally are proportional to the amount of effort required. One shouldn't need a week or 72 hours to write orders for Risk or Diplomacy--which are the only games that have those kinds of deadlines--and if one does I would seriously question the wisdom of such a person playing a game like that in the first place.

Again, what is so terribly difficult about writing orders early to avoid such random occurences or, if you know they are coming, to drop out of the game? If you had a car accident I don't expect you to hop on the forum and say "Hey, guys, got to go to the hospital" but if you're running late, you could do something like, I don't know, send an e-mail to the mod with a cellphone.

That is common courtesy and responsibility. Most people set deadlines because that's when they have time to work on the update. When you delay that, you don't just inconvenience them, but everyone else playing.

Story made short: what the hell is so hard about hoping on a digital communication device of some sort and sending a one-sentence message that you'll be late or need to drop that people can somehow fail to do so repeatedly? Or to just actually do your orders early? There's just no real, justifiable excuse for this behavior unless you have a major crisis or emergency--which doesn't happen all that often. And it's getting worse.

 

[Splime]

I understand that for things such as Risk, 24 to 48 hours makes sense. However, such a timeframe makes unexpected events have a large impact. What I'm saying is, there should be at least a little bit of slack.

 

[Swissempire]

I'm only active in 3 NESes at the moment, and I informed the mods I would attempt to send orders. Its AP exam week and regular exam week. It takes me much longer than an hour to write good orders and if i try to do it in less they're short 6-8 line things.

 

[Nylan]

I understand that for things such as Risk, 24 to 48 hours makes sense. However, such a timeframe makes unexpected events have a large impact. What I'm saying is, there should be at least a little bit of slack.

Correct. Family emergencies or power outages are exponentially more devastating when you have a very small amount of time. NESing is a recreational activity. While there must be order, too much harshness ruins the fun, especially since RL has the priority.

 

[Symphony D.]

While there must be order, too much harshness ruins the fun, especially since RL has the priority.

How then, does one discipline players who repeatedly fail to take heed of deadlines? What's the point in making any deadlines or promises at all if you aren't at some point willing to draw a line in the sand and say "No more. This will not be tolerated." There is none. People don't change their behavior unless there are consequences. For all I just now criticized MjM his punctuality is still demonstratably better than say, Thlayli's in DipNES2. Behavior which continued more or less unabated for the whole game, because there was no response to it.

If you want to change things, you must provide impoetus for change. And in a game, that tends to manifest as punishment. Consequences. Who's going to met those consequences out? Players? Player scorn is weak and ineffectual. They cannot retaliate in game without metagaming. Who then is left? The moderator. And if those people still do not respond well to increased consequences, what then? What do you do? What recourse is left to you other than escalation? If examples have to be made, I say make them, since that seems to be the only way to get people to pay attention.

Your power is out? Grab a computer at school for a few minutes. Send a text message to a friend to post a notice for you. Really, unless you or someone you know is injured, dying, or dead, or is in a grave security situation, it is possible to find the time, means, and wherewithall to notify others of your situation. Duty. Obligation. Responsibility. Common courtesy. Whatever grade of strength you want to assign to it, you should let other people know you won't make that deadline.

I don't remember any of these defenses being offered up while the original ITNES or several entries in the NES2 system operated under zero-tolerance after deadline. I was once out until 4AM moving when I missed an ITNES orderset. You know what Finmaster told me? "Too bad." At the time I was annoyed. Now I see the merit of it.

When it is made clear that late orders will not be accepted, you notice people try much harder to get them--or some sort of statement to be NPC'd--in. Why should it be any different with other games where the standards are more relaxed? It shouldn't. This once more or less boils down to people being lazy, emergencies excepted, and again, by their very definition, emergencies are exceptions. There is no excuse for that kind of lack of decency. It is manipulation of weakness, pure and simple.

Again, I'm not perfect here either. I miss updates. But when you see it crippling your own game, or something as wildly popular as Birdjaguar's game, then things have gone too far. It's time for people to start being accountible for taking player slots and getting their orders in or making some other arrangement to compensate.

 

[Nylan]

How then, does one discipline players who repeatedly fail to take heed of deadlines? What's the point in making any deadlines or promises at all if you aren't at some point willing to draw a line in the sand and say "No more. This will not be tolerated." There is none. People don't change their behavior unless there are consequences. For all I just now criticized MjM his punctuality is still demonstratably better than say, Thlayli's in DipNES2. Behavior which continued more or less unabated for the whole game, because there was no response to it.

If you want to change things, you must provide impoetus for change. And in a game, that tends to manifest as punishment. Consequences. Who's going to met those consequences out? Players? Player scorn is weak and ineffectual. They cannot retaliate in game without metagaming. Who then is left? The moderator. And if those people still do not respond well to increased consequences, what then? What do you do? What recourse is left to you other than escalation? If examples have to be made, I say make them, since that seems to be the only way to get people to pay attention.

Your power is out? Grab a computer at school for a few minutes. Send a text message to a friend to post a notice for you. Really, unless you or someone you know is injured, dying, or dead, or is in a grave security situation, it is possible to find the time, means, and wherewithall to notify others of your situation. Duty. Obligation. Responsibility. Common courtesy. Whatever grade of strength you want to assign to it, you should let other people know you won't make that deadline.

I don't remember any of these defenses being offered up while the original ITNES or several entries in the NES2 system operated under zero-tolerance after deadline. I was once out until 4AM moving when I missed an ITNES orderset. You know what Finmaster told me? "Too bad." At the time I was annoyed. Now I see the merit of it.

When it is made clear that late orders will not be accepted, you notice people try much harder to get them--or some sort of statement to be NPC'd--in. Why should it be any different with other games where the standards are more relaxed? It shouldn't. This once more or less boils down to people being lazy, emergencies excepted, and again, by their very definition, emergencies are exceptions. There is no excuse for that kind of lack of decency.

Again, I'm not perfect here either. I miss updates. But when you see it crippling your own game, or something as wildly popular as Birdjaguar's game, then things have gone too far. It's time for people to start being accountible for taking player slots and getting their orders in or making some other arrangement to compensate.

Sure they should be consequences, and I do understand your points. However, it should be done in a seemlingly uplifting way is far better than a big "you're fired" for example. We're all friends here, and the environment should be positive even with bad news.

My personal opinion on NMRing is that it should be automatic, rather than by request, if you have time to request an NMR you have time to send orders in most cases (for Risk at least)

 

[Symphony D.]

Sure they should be consequences, and I do understand your points. However, it should be done in a seemlingly uplifting way is far better than a big "you're fired" for example. We're all friends here.

There is nothing uplifting about "your country has fallen into anarchy" or "oh, hey, you've been reduced to 1 territory because I assigned your stuff randomly," nor can such events be spun into a positive light however hard one might want to try and do so.

If you are in a game type where you might reward all the others instead of punishing those who were late, I suppose that might suffice, but a lot of the time where this issue of punctuality is proving to be an issue, that's not possible.

If you can suggest a way to make negative consequences appear OK and the mod just says "Hey, just try harder next time!" I'm all ears; but from what I've seen of the world I'm not too hopeful as regards its chances of success.

My personal opinion on NMRing is that it should be automatic, rather than by request, if you have time to request an NMR you have time to send orders in most cases (for Risk at least)

Let me say this plainly: NMRing is not possible in Risk. In Diplomacy or a normal NES, sure. But it isn't in what I'm doing right now. I need at the minimum, placements for the program to physically allow me to progress. Otherwise, I have to:

A.) assign them to logical locations (NPC),
B.) assign them to illogical locations (screw over the player in question), or
C.) assign them at random (screw everyone over).

I don't like A, because having NPCs in Risk is stupid. I don't like B because explicitly screwing over the player in question is rather unfair. And I don't like C because then everyone winds up losing equally. No matter what's picked, the quality of the experience goes down. It would be better to just be one player shorter than have a player who's constantly going that way. And it'd probably be better not to play than to know you got totally screwed for not sending in orders for a single round, which in Risk is very likely.

So, the only ideal situation, in this particular, given instance, is to get all orders in on time, every time. Otherwise things just don't work. If you're going to be super-lenient with deadlines you may as well just abolish them and do updates whenever it just so happens you get orders in, in which case a standard game of Risk will probably take somewhere between 3 and 6 months.

-----

[EDIT] Here's basically what I'm saying: unless your name is Jack Bauer, you have the time, or can make the time, on a regular basis. Maybe not to do full orders, but to let people know at least what's going on so they can plan accordingly. If that involves staying up an extra 20 minutes or hopping into the library for a few minutes on free period or writing down somebody from the forum's e-mail address so you can hit them up with a cellphone, then that is not such an enormous sacrifice of your free time or independence that you can't make it to save other people some annoyance and inconvenience, and acting like it is is nothing but a selfish excuse. Be responsible.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to really have to start fearing for the future of humanity. Mind you, I am someone who wears the title "slacker" with pride, and I genuinely this annoyed at this behavior. I am so annoyed I will do my best to start following what I'm advocating here too.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Are there any other Risk programs out there besides the one we've used?

 

[Nylan]

There is nothing uplifting about "your country has fallen into anarchy" or "oh, hey, you've been reduced to 1 territory because I assigned your stuff randomly," nor can such events be spun into a positive light however hard one might want to try and do so.

If you are in a game type where you might reward all the others instead of punishing those who were late, I suppose that might suffice, but a lot of the time where this issue of punctuality is proving to be an issue, that's not possible.

If you can suggest a way to make negative consequences appear OK and the mod just says "Hey, just try harder next time!" I'm all ears; but from what I've seen of the world I'm not too hopeful as regards its chances of success.

Well, I meant it in more of a "be polite as possible" sort of way. "X, Y, and Z have missed orders and have not explained why, so we're forging ahead anyways" is a better way of putting it then "I TOLD you people. Get your stupid orders in ON TIME. It takes FIVE MINUTES." Equal consequence, but players are less likely to get offended and even though some of them may more than deserve it, they are the lifeblood of the game.

Let me say this plainly: NMRing is not possible in Risk. In Diplomacy or a normal NES, sure. But it isn't in what I'm doing right now. I need at the minimum, placements for the program to physically allow me to progress. Otherwise, I have to:

A.) assign them to logical locations (NPC),
B.) assign them to illogical locations (screw over the player in question), or
C.) assign them at random (screw everyone over).

I don't like A, because having NPCs in Risk is stupid. I don't like B because explicitly screwing over the player in question is rather unfair. And I don't like C because then everyone winds up losing equally. No matter what's picked, the quality of the experience goes down. It would be better to just be one player shorter than have a player who's constantly going that way. And it'd probably be better not to play than to know you got totally screwed for not sending in orders for a single round, which in Risk is very likely.

So, the only ideal situation, in this particular, given instance, is to get all orders in on time, every time. Otherwise things just don't work. If you're going to be super-lenient with deadlines you may as well just abolish them and do updates whenever it just so happens you get orders in, in which case a standard game of Risk will probably take somewhere between 3 and 6 months.

Understandable, although personally I'd rather take B than be kicked out of the game.

 

[Symphony D.]

Are there any other Risk programs out there besides the one we've used?

Highly likely, but odds are it requires sequential play, in which case an update would have to be posted for the actions of every player, and actions coordinated in real time. In such a case, it'd just be better to play directly and get rid of the moderator entirely, in which case it wouldn't belong here.

Well, I meant it in more of a "be polite as possible" sort of way. "X, Y, and Z have missed orders and have not explained why, so we're forging ahead anyways" is a better way of putting it then "I TOLD you people. Get your stupid orders in ON TIME. It takes FIVE MINUTES." Equal consequence, but players are less likely to get offended and even though some of them may more than deserve it, they are the lifeblood of the game.

Personally I can think of little better way to energize people than to offend them. Irritate somebody enough and they'll go to great lengths in response. That's why protesters tend to be highly motivated.

Given the game takes little creative input on my part to run, I don't feel a particularly strong need to undertake all possible measures to continue it either. I'm just running it because it's something to do and something to acclimate me to players doing strange things and asking questions. If it goes down because people won't tolerate me, fair enough, I can go back to working on maps or rules like I should be doing.

That's not true for every game, sure, but if one Risk game dies it's no big deal at all. The goal is to complete the game and have fun--people who can't meet the commitments derail both objectives for everyone else. In the case of Risk the moderator is there to meet those goals, not to provide customer service.

Understandable, although personally I'd rather take B than be kicked out of the game.

Until just now the slot was open to whoever took it first, including the person who got kicked out. Again, I did not immediately become a Stalinist vis-a-vis punishment for failing to meet expectations.

 

[Thlayli]

For all I just now criticized MjM his punctuality is still demonstratably better than say, Thlayli's in DipNES2. Behavior which continued more or less unabated for the whole game, because there was no response to it.

You, sir, are hereby accused of seditious libel.

I'll see you in court!