Warlords Team Democracy Game?

[Krill]

Damnit, I miss oatcakes I've been up at Durham since 1st of October and haven't had any oatcakes

[ChrisiusMaximus]

[Paddy]

Originally posted by 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.

you're such a romantic

[Beta]

Originally posted by Diadem


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?

Diadem - my comments about the heads things was directed at folks I have had experince with in previous games. However, I cannot help but note your short-sightedness on this matter, and your general attitude in posting.

I am not trying to ruin a game for others - in fact - if it flies - which it probably will in some form or another - I will likely be there.

[Krill]

A Politicians answer you'll join a team and just not post or do anything apart from browse over the forum when you're bored

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Beta

............


I am not trying to ruin a game for others - in fact - if it flies - which it probably will in some form or another - I will likely be there.

good

Game On - I hope...

[Thomas Hobbes]

Originally posted by Beta


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.

My statement has nothing to do with possible counter arguments. I'm fully aware that there are credible ones. I'm talking about the mechanism of voting here. It is a theoretical viewpoint of the effect of a negative externality, which might arise by the creation of a warlord TDG on the vanilla democracy games.

In this very example, you're giving the ones playing a vanilla DG a higher weight in their relative voting power than the ones willing to play (only) the Warlords DG, as far as the former can forbid the latter to play the game. On what grounds is this bias based? Because the vanilla DG participants started their game first? Let's assume someone never intended to play any vanilla DG because he/she wanted to wait for the Warlords DG. Would this, at that time, have given him/her the right to start a vote whether or not the vanilla DG can happen, because he/she was afraid that the vanilla DG might crowd out a yet to be started Warlords DG?

Don't get me wrong; These are now merely theoretical questions. I fully understand the reasonings given by Locutus in post #193 ( )

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Beta
And given the events of the last demo game, this is just laughable.

I was under the impression that all had agreed to put this in the past. What relevance does it have to the decision here?

[PLATO]

If my understanding of Locutus points is correct then the idea of not running this game is

1.) Based upon protecting a notable few at Apolyton from their own lack of control in expressing their excesses in joining to many games for their abilities to handle.

2.) Protecting the rest of us from the consequences of those notable few not being as active in a current game.

It also seems like a good opportunity for the admin to let a few folks show their a$$.


Perhaps Poly has the wrong notable few and should look to encouraging more members to play instead of trying to placate a notable few. Perhaps if they were successful in this, then the notable wouldn't be so few.

Apolyton is a site for gamers and about Civ gamers in particular. The very idea that the owners would consider NOT hosting a game about the latest version of this game is appalling.

Can this be the benchmark for Poly heading down the ladder into the also rans?

Unbelievable...Poly might not host the latest version of a Civ DG. Never thought that the site would get so far off mission.

Thanks notable few!

[Krill]

[q=Krill]Let them. C3CDG had a few teams that had almost no members (hell, one team was made up of 1 player, another by only 2, and I think of the remaining 4 teams 2 only had 5 or less members around) and that was a very active game. The thing about that game was that many of those players were not invovlved with the other DGs, it was that some people who were involved with old games decided to overload themselves. What is needed is a reminder to all the players of current DGs that they really can't handle more than one position of power without either burning out or screwing themsleves over in RL.

I learnt that from experince.[/q]

+1?

It's not protecting the "Notable few", it is, IMO, about making sure that everyone that hasn't played a DG, and those people seem to constitute a large percentage of the 19 that want to play inthe new game, what can, and so far always has, happen.

[Krill]

Any way screw this I need sleep...

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Thomas Hobbes
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?

Noone has the power to veto anything other than the site's owners. Leave the interpretation to us: we never said the poll is the ONLY consideration in this. As pointed out, this is not a democracy, in the end the decision is ours to make. We value the poll but only up to an extent. The arguments and reasonings that people provide for their vote are at least as important, if not more so.

And again, you are assuming that there is such a huge hate and envy between the existing DG team and the 19 people who signed up for this Warlords game that a lot of those 50-some people are willing to boycott something that you say does not affect them one way or another. I refuse to believe that that is the case. I am convinced that IF a very high number of people votes against this DG at least most of them will do so because they genuinely believe it will hurt them one way or another -- and in that case they have every right to vote the way they do. What we'll do if that happens is our problem, but let's first see if that happens in the first place.

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.

Indeed, that is always been the issue. But the whole crux is that we do not know yet if we want to do this, and one of the reasons for this is that we would like to have a clearer picture of (1) how many people are interested in playing this game and (2) how many people see a problem w.r.t. the effect on other DGs. That's why I started a new thread in a new forum and that's why I'll be posting a news item and forum announcement on this later. If the game does get started soon it will only be better off for it because more people will be aware of its existence and have had a chance to sign up for it before it starts.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by PLATO
I was under the impression that all had agreed to put this in the past. What relevance does it have to the decision here?

I have to indeed call on everyone on both sides to let bygones be bygones. There is absolutely zero benefit from continuing to drag up old cows time and time again.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot

you're such a romantic

This is true. I was crushed it was not a civic.

+4 happiness in each city; +6 if said city had a nice beach.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Beta


This is true. I was crushed it was not a civic.

+4 happiness in each city; +6 if said city had a nice beach.

hehe