Warlords Team Democracy Game?

[Beta]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
That was very noteably put beta,

Yes it was - and I believe many folks would find it quite accurate.

you definitely are amongst apolytons noteable few

As to being one of the "noteable few" , I doubt that. I have been absent for over 8 months from the site.

But, I think I know who the "noteable few" are. They are the average member who knows and respects Apolyton and what it is trying to do. They consider the pros and cons of various alternatives, for the betterment of the site, for the betterment of the community, and for more fun playing civ. They generally post reasonable, well thought out positions. In fact, now that I think about it, most of the members here on Apolyton are the 'noteable few".

[Beta]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot

or to cause trouble?

Priceless, Paddy. Priceless.

[Paddy]

so are you going to play then Beta?

[Beta]

Not sure. I want to see how the pitboss idea pans out. I suspect it may not work in a team setting.

But I have to tell you Paddy, you avatar is gorgeous.

[Thomas Hobbes]

Originally posted by Beta
(...) and let the poll do its work.

What if the poll is flawed?

Of course I don't know how the results are going to be interpreted, but let's assume for a moment that the people willing to play the Warlords Team Democracy Game are completely different people to the ones playing any of the vanilla democracy games (I know this is not completely the case, but bear with me for a moment).
On what possible reasoning could the latter group then veto the former to play a game they want and are willing to put effort in?
Under this assumption, the decision if the Warlords TDG is going to happen or not has no effect on the Vanilla Democracy Games whatsoever.

The effect holds even if there are only some people not playing the vanilla democracy games (and not willing to join them if the Warlords one is not going to happen).

So, in my opinion, it really is only a question of if the Apolyton Site wants to host the game or not, as Diadem stated in a previous (in my opinion very good) post.

[Krill]

nm

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Beta

well your intervention here is quite noteable indeed, I wonder though how much good has it really done this site.

This noteable few are not what you describe at all, they are merely a few very self obsessed and petty minded individuals, who seem to think everything must revlove around them and what they think, they even seek to tell others just how much civ they can and should play.

You do indeed know very well the noteable ones they are in actual fact very well known to yourself, but your mission here is pointless as well as very sad, this game will go ahead, but not here in such hostile surroundings !

As for your game you can most definitely consider me a non starter, i prefer to play with good sports

[Krill]

FFS guys, can't you all keep a cool head on?

OH, and BTW; Chris, you are already playing with your opponents in this arguement in 2 demogames. I take it you have no complaints about them in those games? Or are you taking old grudges into those games as well?

[ChrisiusMaximus]

nope, but then again im not attempting to prevent anyone from playing a new game either !

[Diadem]

Originally posted by Beta
Paddy - your "sad...but ..." comment is BS. As was Diadem's statement. Will the bunch of you pull your heads out of your collective a$$es - which from my memory of the after-math of the C3CDG debacle is where you really liked to keep them - and let the poll do its work.

I don't know who you are and I don't care. We are not the ones with our heads in our 'a$$es', quite the opposite.

If you don't want to play this game, don't play it. How simple can it be?

But in that case, get the hell out of here and let those who want to play it do that.

You are trying to ruin a game for others, a game you do not even want to play yourself. How pathetic is that?

[Beta]

Originally posted by Thomas Hobbes


What if the poll is flawed?

Of course I don't know how the results are going to be interpreted, but let's assume for a moment that the people willing to play the Warlords Team Democracy Game are completely different people to the ones playing any of the vanilla democracy games (I know this is not completely the case, but bear with me for a moment).
On what possible reasoning could the latter group then veto the former to play a game they want and are willing to put effort in?
Under this assumption, the decision if the Warlords TDG is going to happen or not has no effect on the Vanilla Democracy Games whatsoever.

The effect holds even if there are only some people not playing the vanilla democracy games (and not willing to join them if the Warlords one is not going to happen).

So, in my opinion, it really is only a question of if the Apolyton Site wants to host the game or not, as Diadem stated in a previous (in my opinion very good) post.

So I gather you have not read, or understood, the various counter arguments, and the fact that those not willing to play in this game do have a stake in it.

[Krill]

All you guys are doing is arguing over the moral high ground and not over if you are allowed to play a game; we both know that a warlords demogame will start, even if the owners refuse to open fora here as you'll all just move to somewhere like CGN. There is nothing that anyone here can do to stop you. Locutus has stated as much about 4 times already.

All Beta et al are trying to do is protect the games they are in. Are they not "allowed" to do that, just as you are "allowed" to start games as you please?

So you're just arguing if Apolyton is effectively here to be used as the users want or the owners want. You can't pressure the owners, and I don't know or care if that is good or bad, because they own the site, they have the ability to permaban, they have the ability to do all kinds of **** while everyone is on their turf. The basic response has always been "If you don't like it then leave". And unfortunately that will be applied here.

BTW, what is it that makes those of us from the potteries so hostile?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Diadem
I am not hurting the demogames by not playing them. I am doing nothing against them. I simply do not play them. Calling this 'hurting them' only proves that you have a very ****ed up definition of the word 'hurt'.

If you currently do not play any DGs and don't plan on ever playing any if this Warlords DG doesn't happen, no, you do not hurt the other games. However, if you set up a Warlords DG you are "guilty" of drawing away attention and people from these other games to yours --- because many other people DO play these other games and WILL change their behaviour based on the game you intend to start -- this has been proven time and time again with other DGs in the past. That is not in any way a malicious action on your part or even on the part of any of the people who do play those games -- noone is implying any such thing -- but the end result IS slower games for everyone and that DOES "hurt" the community. We are not pointing blame or accusing anyone but it's a fact that it has happened in the past and a very logical conclusion that it will happen again and as such it's something the Apolyton administration has to take into account before we endorse and support any new DG, whether the one proposed here or any other.

If other demogames loose players to us, that just means we are more interesting. That's a good thing. It means more players will be playing a game they really like.

That is a very valid argument but at the very least it will leave people who are NOT interested in a Warlords DG (for example because they do not have Warlords, still a very large group of people, or because they want to see a game through to the end) with a DG that cannot be finished and not enough resources to set up a new game. That is a very, very frustrating experience, I've been there myself. It has the potential to generate a lot of hate and envy back and forth and that is destructive for the entire community -- we've certainly been THERE before...

There are currently probably 50ish people fairly actively involved in the current team DG and 19 in the proposed Warlords DG. Since many of those 19 also take part in the existing DG theoretically that's just enough to kill both games. I'm not saying it *will* happen but it might, and that makes it something we take into account before making a decision.

When we as Apolyton endorse and support a DG we do so with the intention of making sure everyone has a good time playing the game and seeing that support through to the end, whether that is the game's conclusion or until noone clearly wants to play anymore. This is our policy exactly because we want to avoid said hate and envy. The past has shown that we cannot support more than a certain number of DGs at the same time without creating problems for everyone, where the exact numbers depend largely on the total size of the community involved and their distribution over the various games. Hence this poll and discussion.

Yes, one approach is to play 'survival of the fittest' as you suggest and create a situation where many games are started but none are finished (because that is what *will* happen: no matter how fast you play this Warlords DG it will almost certainly not be finished before the next Civ4 XP is released and that will create the same situation all over again -- not to mention new patches, influxes of new members and other events that might spawn interest in starting yet another new DG). Another approach is to do what we have chosen to do and to limit the number of DGs we support to make sure each gets optimal attention, from both the administration and the community. These are both in principle valid approaches but you have to choose one, you can't have both. In our case we simply do not feel that starting but never finishing games is a desirable situation. You can disagree with that but if you do you will indeed find yourself at odds with us. That happens sometimes, on a big site like this we can't all agree all the time on every issue... It's no reason to make more of that than it is, we are not organising some kind of hidden campaign against people we don't like, we simply try to do what we feel is best for all in the long run based on constructive discussion and our past experiences.

Rest assured, if we do decide to set up a Warlords DG we will be just as cautious when the next group comes along and wants to draw people away from that DG to yet another new one. Maybe we'll allow it, maybe we won't, we decide these things on a case-by-case basis. But if we do allow this Warlords DG now we will stand up for it if it is threatened by other projects, just as we do now for the exsting DG, regardless of whether the people involved in it are called Paddy, Zoid, Diadem, Klor, E_T or someone else entirely. If you are on the 'receiving end' at that time I'm sure you will appreciate that then.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

oatcakes mate

[Beta]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Beta

well your intervention here is quite noteable indeed, I wonder though how much good has it really done this site.

Dear Chrisius Minimus - this does not even deserve a comment.

This noteable few are not what you describe at all, they are merely a few very self obsessed and petty minded individuals, who seem to think everything must revlove around them and what they think, they even seek to tell others just how much civ they can and should play.

You do indeed know very well the noteable ones they are in actual fact very well known to yourself, but your mission here is pointless as well as very sad, this game will go ahead, but not here in such hostile surroundings !

This is as pathetic as it is untrue.

As for your game you can most definitely consider me a non starter, i prefer to play with good sports

And given the events of the last demo game, this is just laughable.