The Dance of Civilizations [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread Pt1]

[Persia (DoC)]

I also use attitude for penalty or reward. It's a 4 for civs where nothing special happened. If a civ loses a war but stays cool and won't start an ooc fight, they can expect a good attitude rating from me. And if they do start a fight, I'll give them a bad attitude rating.
Same with the victor civs, if they push too far and crumble smaller civs, I'll hit them with the attitude stick. But if they're offering acceptable peace turns, I'll reward them.

I don't think we should judge the system based on 1 month. I should grow over time.
I'm happy that I go a very very good story rating! That's in the end more important to me! Thanks all!


edit: I removed the whining

[Rasputin]

wel ldone natives,

[India (DoC)]

Us all liking different things is one thing, but if one player gives out lots of 1s and 2s if it doesn't know you have been doing anything interesting, while others see 4 as default and give a bonus one or two to the odd nation, its going to be very distorted.

Those who give 1s and 2s will get potentialy better position than those who give 4s-7s, It's quite easy to see, but I don't think we can do anything about it. ( I still won't give low score-except you deserve it )

[India (DoC)]

For the first session I left diplo and attitude scores at default 4 for all civs. For diplo I don't think I will give less than 4 (unless someone won't check our pm diplo letters for forever ) and I will reward diploamtic accomplishments. As for attitude: I see it more like a punishing tool.. and I'm too nice (but maybe not forever )

[Robert]

Well, following the logic of The Priest, if we vote on role playing/story telling, we all vote on the same knowledge.
If it's about attitude/military/diplomacy, none of us know the entire picture.

The fact that different players rate on different criteria is not the problem, according to The Priest (and others). Their problem is that we vote while we all lack information.

[Rasputin]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

, even the storys voting is biased , becaue some love pics and the back storys , some hate forigen language. . will never be perfect

[Robert]

But maybe there are in the end only two categories in games like this, role playing and gamescore. And we could give role playing a weight of 60% and gamescore a weight of 40%.

[Robert]

@The Priest: first of all: the Khmer did pretty good, so that should please you (I'll post the results today as tables, also including the stats on how civs rated others)

Yes, some civs will give out low avg rates while others may hand out heigh avg ratings. But that doesn't matter because all civs vote for all civs. It matters more if civA hands out ratings to all civs in the same philosophy, and not judges some civs on other grounds then others.

As long as everybody rates everybody, everything will average itself out.
If we give everyone, say 20 points to divide among the civs per month, then we will still have some civs who'll hand out 15 to 1 civ and 5x1 to 5 other civs, and civs that will hand out 1 to 10 civs and 2 to 5 civs.

Democracy isn't perfect, especially not if you look at the individual votes.
But you should look at the great picture.

But if many people feel bad about the current system we can of course discuss a new system.

[Rasputin]

Wel lseems we have a deadlock then

i wont vote on DIplomacy on jsut how someone has dealt with me that makes it too personal and could lead to a distortion of votes for those that i like or dont like..

[The Priest]

I based all my votes on what i saw in the story thread.

Tip: You can always have dipomacy behind the scenes, and tell about it in story posts without revealing classified information!

I disagree.

All those approaches will give us is a rerun of the mess we had with military votes.

The problem with military was we weren't voting on military, we were voting on storying about military (because few had independent information on how the wars actually went). So 'miliary' because just 'story' under another name, and so there were actually two story votes.

The approach above means we aren't voting on diplomacy, just storying about diplomacy. So again we are in danger of just having a double category of storying.

I can't see the results because I don't have firefox (doesn't bother me greatly) so I have no idea if the voting has worked well for me (Khmer) or not. But it seems to me that we may well have a problem, with different people using different systems for rating. Us all liking different things is one thing, but if one player gives out lots of 1s and 2s if it doesn't know you have been doing anything interesting, while others see 4 as default and give a bonus one or two to the odd nation, its going to be very distorted.

Maybe I am wrong. A quick way to see would be to see the means and spread of the votes from each nation.

(The issue is that this voting system does not give everyone the same number of votes to give out, while in BtP that was teh system - everyone had 3 votes per category - or if we ranked everyone would have the same number of 'votes' to give out, but here is sounds like some people could well be giving out large numbers of points, while others very few, which means it will matter a lot whether which nations you happen to be next to, and be interfacing with. And this won't solve itself quickly, since its really quite late in game when relationships at a great distance become as meaningful as those close at hand, so whether you have a high point giving out neighbours or low will still matter a lot mid-game.)

[Robert]

Tip: You can always have dipomacy behind the scenes, and tell about it in story posts without revealing classified information!

[Rasputin]

if the only diplomatic relations you having are all in PM then it your own fault for getting a low score.

I based all my votes on what i saw in the story thread.

All my In game communciaitosn were mentioned in my posts so i keep it out there.

If you choose to keep it all queit then your diplomatic style is worth less than a 4. posting about the diplomatic relations will make others appreciate you mroe .

We shouldnt be voting on how people use diplomacy with our own civ , but how they use it for all. Otherwise we will vote low for someone who takes advantage of us. but in relaity they are a great negotiator , my way stops it becoming personal.

[Orb (DoC)]

I'm lost. So where do I stand?

[Mali (DoC)]

@rating comments,
This is in fact what we voted for last week.
The alternative is that we do not do a monthly point assignement but just take the average rate of all ratings throughout the entire game.

I have no problem with the system. I do have a problem with ratings. When it was explained before, a 4 was basically a neutral vote. It certainly doesn't look like that is the case with diplomacy.

Story, I can understand because everyone has their own stipulations on story. Personally I see no reason why Inca is so high (no offense). I know I'm not the only person that couldn't read the posts, regardless of the roleplay element.

Diplomacy is hard and you have only met a fwe neighbors and game attitude is, i suppose what you give to the game. how can I give a player more or less than average on diplomacy when i have not met them.

Inca, I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to give anything other than a 4 for diplomacy with any civ you haven't met. The stats do not display this same mentality by everyone.

[Inca (DoC)]

Diplomacy is hard and you have only met a fwe neighbors and game attitude is, i suppose what you give to the game. how can I give a player more or less than average on diplomacy when i have not met them.