Domination of Barbarians [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[Spain (DoB)]

I agree to this plea for more transparancy.

The GM should not have, as France said,

the power to waive existing rules, add new rules as they desire and to assign substitutes to civs as they see fit

Although I must add I don't think Sommerswerd is abusing his power.
But @Sommers, you tend to decide a bit too fast, with too little discussion.

That said, I think @France, that Sommers has shown things can always be discussed..

[Russia (DoB)]

Would like to hear from Byzantium about the reason for resigning.

[France (DoB)]

That said, I think @France, that Sommers has shown things can always be discussed..

This issue has been discussed extensively in private by Sommerswerd and I since the beginning of the game, with enough emails to fill the new Great Library of Greece without any resolution. This reload has brought the matter to the forefront after being dormant for over a month. I do not believe Sommerswerd is intentionally abusing his power however the nature of power is that without checks and balances it becomes self-serving.

We need a proposal to discuss in order to reach a resolution so here is my proposal.

1) Reload the game to the point where it was originally stopped (i.e. the first 360 AD with only China left to play), as per the rules of no reloads except as a last resort.

2) Pause the game long enough to let the new German substitute login before the turn rolls over. Allow the German to keep his identity a secret as per existing rule set but change the rules for substitutions going forward (see proposal 4 below).

3) Put the following checks and balances on the GM.
a) GM cannot waive or modify existing rules without approval of at least 50% +1 of the civs in the game.
b) GM cannot add new rules without approval of at least 50% +1 of the civs in the game.
c) If a player disagrees with the GM's interpretation of an existing rule then they may request a vote that requires 50% +1 of the civs to overturn the GM's interpretation
d) All such rule discussions and votes are to be done openly in the organization thread for transparency.

4) Amendment 5 (New Rule 12.5 rules just imposed by the GM) to be removed and replaced by:
a) A player may arrange for another player to substitute for them before leaving the game.
b) A player that resigns by turning their Civ to AI will automatically invoke a Cold Turkey Time to see if it helps. If not, then the Civ will be left as an AI.
c) Any player that misses 20 consecutive turns without either logging into the game or posting on the game threads will be kicked to AI.
d) New players may take over an AI Civ but existing players may not substitute for them (unless they resign from their current Civ first).

[Portugal (DoB)]

I don't know what this big fuss is all about, but I see discussion and I like the fact it is happening.

[Ottomans (DoB)]

Good proposal France!

To confirm - you are recommending that existing players NOT be allowed to play their original civ AND sub for an orphaned civ. Correct?

The rest looks good. This one aspect though - just thinking it through. With a limited pool of diplo players, it is often difficult to get a new player to come in at the time needed. Having someone 'babysit' that civ gives the GM and others time to hunt down a new player. That is my sense of how it has been used in the past, and why we generally try to get a civ that is not involved too heavily in the local scene to takeover.

I agree the best solution is a new player, but if that is not immediately possible, then what? AI it?

[France (DoB)]

To confirm - you are recommending that existing players NOT be allowed to play their original civ AND sub for an orphaned civ. Correct?

The rest looks good. This one aspect though - just thinking it through. With a limited pool of diplo players, it is often difficult to get a new player to come in at the time needed. Having someone 'babysit' that civ gives the GM and others time to hunt down a new player. That is my sense of how it has been used in the past, and why we generally try to get a civ that is not involved too heavily in the local scene to takeover.

I agree the best solution is a new player, but if that is not immediately possible, then what? AI it?

My proposal is that if a player arranges a sub, including another player, for his civ before quitting then that is fine. If the player does not arrange for a sub then instead of having the GM picking who can sub for the civ then the civ turns to AI. My issue is not with players subbing for each other, it is with the GM, who is also a player, choosing who subs for a civ. That choice can have a major impact, as former allies can turn into arch-enemies and vice-versa.

[Ottomans (DoB)]

My proposal is that if a player arranges a sub, including another player, for his civ before quitting then that is fine. If the player does not arrange for a sub then instead of having the GM picking who can sub for the civ then the civ turns to AI. My issue is not with players subbing for each other, it is with the GM, who is also a player, choosing who subs for a civ. That choice can have a major impact, as former allies can turn into arch-enemies and vice-versa.

But if the GM, with all objectivity, chooses a player who is playing a civ from the other side of the world, with the good intention of allowing that subbed civ to do OK for the next handful of turns, what is the problem? I presume that you are worried that the civ-from-the-other-side-of-the-world will not be as objective as we all hope it will be.

[England (DoB)]

Just just curious but what was difference between when game was reloaded and reloading at 360 AD as France suggested (and what turn is 360 AD anyway?). Fine with either one, just not following why it matters. Or is it just a matter of principle?

As to GM rule change proposals - makes sense but think it should be modified to 50%+1 of those civ that vote on a proposal rather than all civs. Considering how few civs actually bother to vote every month (have not done the math for a while but even early in the game it was normally less than half) we will never be able to change anything without such a modification. Main potential concern here is that a block of allied civs could ram through rule changes that benefit them. Also vote on rule could cause a lot of in game hatred/anger and damage in game relations where as now all of that is just directed at sommers. I know sommers loves his legalese so I'd be curious to see what modifications he would propose here as well.

I'm not ok with people who miss 20 turns getting kicked to AI. Don't people take real life vacations in this world? I've been lucky enough to find people to sub for me when out of town, but if I had not been able to set this up I would have been kicked from the game because of this. 20 turns is really not that long in my view.

I'm of mixed view on people subbing. I think someone subbing as a caretaker while we look for a longer term sub could make sense and it would not make sense to force them to resign there normal civ as no one woudl ever do it then. In any case this is not a bit issue for me in either case. I was fine with whomever sommers picked to play Germany, but would also be fine with Germany as an AI, or something else. I mainly would like to resolve this as fast as possible before people lose interest and the game dies as we debate stuff endlessly.

For a short term solution, could we reload (perhaps when France suggests) and just leave Germany unresolved as we continue to discuss here? Germany would remain a human player but just would not have anyone logging in.

[China (DoB)]

If we find a solution to this will the Byzantines coming back?

If we have Germany, France and Byzantium quitting, is not the argument on who replaces who mute? It's game over in my opinion unless we find a solution.

Really the likelihood of getting an external sub is slim, so if the question on who subs is an issue, set Germany as AI after trying for a few days (Sunday the limit) to find a player. I'd be happy to play as a human player for Germany for a few days to get the game going but I don't want to do so permanently. I have no interest in European affairs other than it would be nice to see a different area of the map.

Please restart the game to the time that France wants, although I'm not sure why that is important but I don't care. I just want to see this game continue.

I think the best solution is set Germany as AI if no human player can be found, let the European powers fight over the remnants of the German civ. In reality that would be what would happen if a civ's leader offed himself and was without an effective govt.

Would it be easier if we discussed this in real time via Skype chat or something?

[Caledorn]

I am appalled at the implications of what you are stating in this thread, France, and by your behaviour - whoever you are. You signed up for this game knowing that Sommerswerd would be the game admin, and also a participant of the game. This was made perfectly clear in the signup thread, and you have had nearly a year of playtime before you now all of a sudden decide to throw a childish temper tantrum over not getting your way. This you do by resigning your civ to AI, and then carefully make sure you get the opportunity to present a list of demands afterwards, as you knew there would be debate over your decision.

I have no objections to you using those tactics in character, and you've been a masterful Machiavellian plotter - my hat is off to you on your skills. But taking this onto a personal level, where you are outright accusing Sommerswerd of playing dirty tactics, placing people he wants in key positions, and changing the rules to further his own goals is simply below the belt. If you had no trust in the admin of the game to play fairly from the beginning of the game, I do not see why you bothered to sign up (or continue to play the game at the first turn of events where you felt things were going wrong).

What you are proposing, is turning this game into a majority alliance tyranny, where the players who are able to get into the key majority alliances will dominate the rules of the game and who subs for what nation in times where there are not enough players to play all the nations. You are suggesting to strip Sommerswerd of his trust from all the players, and you are suggesting to demote him from the game admin position because you have some absurd notion that he is playing dishonorably. I am all for discussing rules, and debating what is the best decision for all the players, but I am strongly in opposition to any rule change that makes the players able to change the rules by a majority decision unless it is a majority decision that includes all the players. I have complete confidence in Sommerswerd's judgement, and I know he would not in any way try to cheat his way to a victory in the game in the ways you have implicated.

Now, to everyone who is playing the game: I urge you to please reconsider the implications of what France is proposing in terms of said majority decision based rule changes. I also urge you to show Sommerswerd that the trust that we have given him from the very beginning of the game still stands. If you truly believe that Sommerswerd does not play fairly, and that he is not suited to be the game admin while he is participating in the game, then I suggest you step down now and leave the game gracefully without making this a potential gamebreaker that ruins the entire game for everyone else so we can find someone who can sub for your civ (or civs).

If the players of the game feels that France is behaving appropriately in this matter, and decides that Sommerswerd is not worthy of the trust he has been given from back when he started the game, I will immediately resign from the game without further comment. The game will then turn into something completely different than what I signed up for, and I have absolutely no interest of continuing to play under those circumstances.

---

Addendum (to those who ask that subs are made public, and in regards to this discussion which is a major discussion about the game rules, I would like to quote the very first three rules, where I have underlined key issues. Keep in mind these are rules we all agreed to in the very beginning, and that these rules have not been changed at any point during the game):

Section 1.0 - Anonymous Play
1.1. All players will receive an anonymous apolyton account (like "Greece (DoB)"), which they will use for diplomacy (post and PM) and story telling (posts). The players behind the civs won't be revealed during the game. When players login to the game they must use an anonymous name to keep their true identity hidden.

1.2. It is not allowed to reveal anybody’s anonymous identity or to speak about these identities in private or public. During the game people may get more and more clues, but still keep their mouth shut about it. If you finally figure out, or think you have figured out someone’s true identity, please try to keep it to yourself. There will be no penalties for violating this rule. You are on your honor.

1.3. Both in IC threads/posts and OOC threads/posts players will only use their Anonymous ID.
The only exception to the rule is when there's a vote on a game-rule or game-mechanism. Then players will use their normal Apolyton ID to vote.

[Halvgud]

From the start, Sommerswerd has been in the game, everyone knows this. When something has come up, he has listened and sometimes added to or changed the rules as they were set out. To have all of us vote on rules now, after such a long time.. I don't like it. I reject the proposal of France.

To put it simply - I trust Sommerswerd.

I trust him to be objective.
I trust him to listen to both sides of an argument.
I trust him to play his part in the game.
I trust him with the responsibility of maintaining this game.
I trust him to make the call when a ruling is needed.

I may not like every call he makes, my civ may get the downside of a ruling that I requested. But I can square my shoulders and play on, learn from what takes place and perhaps incorporate it in a future strategy for my civ(especially if something happens between two other civs). I have learned more than I thought I would so far in this game.

If you don't trust Sommerswerd, after he time and again has listened when questioned about rules, asked us about changes, been reasonable in his replies and given us opportunities to respond.. If all of this has not established him as a GM that you would like to play under..

Then my suggestion is simple, search out a sub for your civ or send your anonymous account password to Sommerswerd and leave it to him, then walk away.

---

Two things I would like to highlight:


First, a section of the game rules:

4. Diplogame Spirit: Does the player seem to capture the spirit of what Diplogaming is about, or is he just trying to win the game in a pure MP way? Pure MP style play, to just defeat, dominate and eliminate or marginalize everyone... Constantly arguing over the rules and always trying to find some loophole or weakness in the rules... Breaking rules or constantly testing the limits in order to take advantage of is not deserving of points. Reward the players who play with a Diplogame Spirit, not players who grasp for every advantage regardless of cost or the effect on the morale of the game.

---

Second, my bottom line is a total agreement to this statement:

If the players of the game feels that France is behaving appropriately in this matter, and decides that Sommerswerd is not worthy of the trust he has been given from back when he started the game, I will immediately resign from the game without further comment. The game will then turn into something completely different than what I signed up for, and I have absolutely no interest of continuing to play under those circumstances.

Something that I hope will not happen, since I have had tremendous fun playing with all of you.

[Spain (DoB)]

Section 1.0 - Anonymous Play
1.1. All players will receive an anonymous apolyton account (like "Greece (DoB)"), which they will use for diplomacy (post and PM) and story telling (posts). The players behind the civs won't be revealed during the game. When players login to the game they must use an anonymous name to keep their true identity hidden.

I agree to this. I am only asking which country is going to sub, I have no interest in which player. This is information which is crucial in-game.

Something that I hope will not happen, since I have had tremendous fun playing with all of you.

Hear, hear. Agreed whoelheartedly.

[Greece (DoB)]

Fully agree with Caledorn and Halvgud!!!

[China (DoB)]

I agree with Caledorn and Halvqud too. Never in my response did I think our game admin has done anything wrong. I respect his decisions.

[WarningU2]

4) Amendment 5 (New Rule 12.5 rules just imposed by the GM) to be removed and replaced by:
a) A player may arrange for another player to substitute for them before leaving the game.
b) A player that resigns by turning their Civ to AI will automatically invoke a Cold Turkey Time to see if it helps. If not, then the Civ will be left as an AI.
c) Any player that misses 20 consecutive turns without either logging into the game or posting on the game threads will be kicked to AI.
d) New players may take over an AI Civ but existing players may not substitute for them (unless they resign from their current Civ first).

Don't agree with this amendment. It is not realisitic. I have subbed for another player temporarily in the game due to a couple of brief absenses. Would this rule mean I would have to resign my own civ?

I will be on vacation in April for 19 days. I doubt I would be able to find anyone else outside the game to play. Thus according to the amendment I likely would be kicked.

As for France's accusations that Sommersword has abused his power. Totally false.