The Spirit of the AU Mod

[nbarclay]

Looking at how quickly some of these votes are being taken and at how the panel members are voting, I think a lot of the spirit of the AU Mod is being lost. The AU Mod has a tradition that when changes are proposed, we generally try to develop a consensus before adopting them. Changes have been made slowly, with ample time for consideration of each one.

Now, with the C3C version, a number of completely new changes have been proposed and voted on in an extremely short period of time. Worse, "Yes" votes seem to mean only, "Yes, off the top of my head, I like the idea," rather than, "Yes, I'm sure we've given this matter all the time and thought it needs and we're sure this is the right way to do it."

I would like to propose that all votes taken thus far be ruled invalid and that new votes be taken in which panelists have four options: Yes, No, Defer (meaning that more discussion is needed before the panelist is ready to support the change), and Experimental (meaning that the idea should be tested in a suitable AU game before being made an official part of the mod). Changes would be adopted only when the "Yes" votes are in the majority, and panelists would be expected to vote "Defer" or "Experimental" if they are not fully satisfied that discussion has been adequate.

The "Experimental" classification has two functions. First, it helps identify where changes in one version of the mod are likely to be changed again in a later one. And second, it gives players a list of things they need to pay special attention to to see whether the changes seem good or bad in order to facilitate further discussion after the changes have been tested.

The idea of the "Defer" option is that sometimes, as with the ToE/Hoover combination, several proposals are in play and there has been nowhere near enough discussion or careful consideration to pick which one belongs in the Mod. In such cases, I contend that the best choice is to leave the rules alone until we're sure we've considered all the angles. Not everything we view as a problem has to be addressed in the first version of the Mod!!! I'd rather take our time and do things right.

Nathan

[alexman]

This thread is insulting to me, and to all other panel members who have voted.

[nbarclay]

My intention was not to insult anyone, but rather to call for a broader framework for consideration. When panelists are called on to vote yes or no, it pressures them into either accepting or rejecting a change now based on whatever thought and discussion they've had time for thus far. ("Off the top of my head" is a bit of a caricature, but with how quickly the idea of removing Electronics as a prerequisite for Motorized Transportation was rammed through, I'm not sure it's much of one.) I think there is a need for a clear, explicit option of saying that a decision needs to be deferred pending further thought and discussion without rejecting a change outright.

If the panelists can all honestly say that had the "defer" and "experimental" options as I just described been available, they would never have voted "defer" rather than "yes," I apologize for misjudging the panel. Otherwise, I stand by my belief that a flawed process has sometimes pressured the panel into voting "yes" too quickly.

Nathan

[Jaguar]

I agree with Nathan, and while I have the greatest respect for the panel, I think that things are being put to vote too quickly.

[alexman]

Please read the philosophy and method we follow in the AU mod.

[Nor Me]

I'm not sure that the AU Mod has had a tradition of trying to develop a consensus before adopting changes any more than it does now. Many changes had little discussion. Especially those that alexman proposed and no-one commented on. I don't think that we can blame him for that; obviously, it takes more than one person to have a discussion! The advantage of the many-thread system is that all changes are discussed. (Of course the disadvantage is that we're dominating the forum. Hopefully we'll actually have a game soon to change that or the lurkers will get the wrong impression of what AU is about.)

You can take that when I have voted yes to removing the requirement of electronics from Motorized Transportation, I've thought about the change. If I'd prefered Lockstep's original suggestion or one of those with strange requirements for ToE, I'd have said that too. Yes, it has large reprecussions other than anything to do with ToE and Hoover.

I know that you first suggested a panel to prevent radical changes that haven't been thought through. The trouble is that we're unlikely to be able to test the impact of a change like this without playing it. I'd rate it as likely that if we put this change in the AU Mod, it will later be removed. At least then we'll know why it wasn't perfect and probably have a rival proposal that may be as radical. We all agree that the stock rules are imperfect.

I could have voted this 'experimental' but I'm not sure that's much different from 'yes'. If I change my mind after playing some games with it, I'd point this out. That could well become part of a discussion leading to another vote. At least we'd have hard evidence about the change by then.

I doubt that by doing things more slowly we'd end up with a better mod in the end. There's a limit to how much discussion we'll end up with on each topic and much of that isn't so useful.

[Jawa Jocky]

I agree that the C3C mod is moving along quickly compared to previous mods. With the amount of experience the panel has and dedication they have always shown, I don’t see why they should move so slowly. There is a learning curve to modding and I dare say we have some of the most experienced people making the decisions.

[Ision]

I have read the majority of the post within the AU forum and have come to find that the decisions are well thought out and thoroughly debated. There seems to be a somewhat of an overly dramatic reaction to the proposed changes.

As a long time player of the original AU MOD and all it's variants, I see no reason NOT to go ahead in a expeditious manner with the changes. If the changes are as flawed as some claim, then this will manifest itself during the course of game play. Debate and analysis are fine, but there is no substitute for actual game play. At a certain point the over analysis of a subject leads to a paralysis of decision-making. As the cliché says; Analysis – Paralysis.

Lastly, I am familiar with the ‘spirit’ of the AU MOD, and the agreed general approach. I do not see how the ‘Electronics’ proposal is any way more radical than moving Longevity to the second tech in a completely different age. It simply is not a game breaker. The overall debate on these changes should not begin to take the tone of a ‘life and death’ struggle between irreconcilable political camps. This is not Dean vs. Bush 2004. Keep your perspective on what it is your actually doing here, and that is experimenting with modifications to a GAME (it’s just a game after all), for the purpose of enhancing your ‘Hobby’ experience. I understand that you take this game and your hobby seriously, this is not meant to depreciate the hard work and effort. It is only meant to perhaps reemphasize the friendly camaraderie in which this task should be pursued.

This spirit of the AU Mod should be more than a set of rules and limitations on approaches to modifications. It should have as a central theme the spirit of a group of ‘friends’ enjoying their hobby and working towards a common goal.

Ision

[nbarclay]

I just read it, and it's not being followed. According to that thread there is supposed to be a one-week period for discussion after the panel develops a specific proposal that it intends to vote on. In contrast, some of the recent votes came almost completely out of the blue, in some cases while multiple competing ideas were under discussion.

I further contend that if any substantial changes are made to a proposal during the one-week discussion period, the effect is to create a different "specific proposal" which in turn requires restarting the one-week comment period. That is the only way of ensuring that a person who liked the original change but dislikes the revisied version (or who liked the original one better) gets a fair chance to comment. Certainly, one proposal should not be replaced with another, radically different proposal without restarting the clock.

I also contend that the mere fact that the person who started a thread happens to be a member of the panel does not elevate the status of the thread starter idea to that of a specific proposal by the panel. Consider the words, "After listening to all sides of the debate, the AU mod panel then formulates a specific proposal." Where is the "after listening to all sides of the debate" part if the thread starter message is regarded as a "specific proposal" for procedural purposes?

What needs to happen to make the described procedure function correctly is that when we move from general discussion to official consideration of some specific proposal (or proposals), a panel member needs to post a message to the effect of, "This is the specific proposal that we plan to vote on," in the discussion thread. That would make it clear both that an official specific proposal exists and when the clock started on the one-week period to focus discussion on that specific proposal.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If the panelists can all honestly say that had the "defer" and "experimental" options as I just described been available, they would never have voted "defer" rather than "yes," I apologize for misjudging the panel. Otherwise, I stand by my belief that a flawed process has sometimes pressured the panel into voting "yes" too quickly.

Did it occur to you that a panelist sometimes would have voted "defer" rather than "no" if given the option? I would have done this two times - regarding the separation of Light Cavalry and Cavalry, and regarding the change to Feudalism's support costs. This should be obvious by the comments I added to my respective votes.

[nbarclay]

What I've been seeing with the C3C version of the AU Mod strikes me as a radical departure from the mod's traditional philosophy. I had hoped that that was a result of the pressure the yes/no votes were placing on panelists, but it may well be that I need to forget about ever playing with the AU Mod again.

Personally, as a matter of philosophy, I don't like mods. The AU Mod has been an exception because (1) it didn't change a whole lot, (2) it generally had good reasons for its changes, and (3) it was done by a group I respected and trusted to have the interests of the game at heart.

The third reason still holds, but the first two seem to be disappearing rapidly. I don't mind ideas like making cavalry less powerful or keeping curaughs from establishing contact across a broad ocean in 2000 BC, because even when they are big, they fix real, meaningful game balance issues. But bringing Longevity into the industrial age just because people dislike how useless it is in the modern one was bad enough in terms of making changes for essentially whimsical reasons. Now we're adding changes to colosseums and radical surgery to the industrial tech tree. Individually, the changes aren't huge, but they add up. Given a choice between playing the stock game and playing with a mod that includes a bunch of whimsical changes alongside the truly useful ones, I'll probably stick to the stock game.

And the attitude of, "Let's try it; we can always change it back," bothers me even more. I didn't mind occasionally playing AU games where part of the goal was to test some particular experiment in the AU Mod, especially since I could always play a particular game with stock rules if the proposed change sounded too annoying. I wouldn't even mind, at some point in the future, playing a game that experiments with what happens when Electronics is removed as a requirement for tanks. But I think such experiments are best conducted one or two at a time, not by throwing all the experimental changes that seem potentially worthwhile into the mod at once and seeing what happens.

We're trying to do so much so quickly that discussion of individual issues is suffering as a result. I think the initial version of the mod should stick mostly to changes we're sure we want, try some of the most important experiments (the cavalry and ancient sea travel changes), and leave the rest of the changes that seem experimental in nature for future versions.

If making the AU Mod something others enjoy means making it something I won't, I can live with that. Different people do have different tastes, after all. But I'm not thrilled at the idea of being forced to accept the largely whimsical changes in order to get the real, important strategic enhancements.

Nathan

[ducki]

I'm torn here.
On one hand, things do seem to be moving rather quickly.
On the other much of the discussed changes are "repeat" topics from long ago. Mil.Acad., ToE-Hoover, Longevity, Research Priorities, Bombardment, etc.
I'm not saying they are all reruns, just that we're on very familiar ground with a lot of these issues, even taking into account the differences of C3C.

On one hand, I agree with Nathan that a bit more... formalism for lack of a better word, is in order. With the institution of the panel and the officialness of our own forum as well as how clearly and concisely the "ground rules" have been laid out, my impression was originally that it would "be different this time around". In practice, it seems that the mod is running along much like it did months ago, with the addition of a bit of structure.

This is no indictment of anyone, but I understand both sides on this one, and perhaps without the up-front organization and documentation of the ground rules and the Panel by alexman, I doubt any of us would have really noticed things seemed to be "moving fast". The effort to streamline and codify seems to have given the impression that things would go slower than ever, while the goal of streamlining is, in fact, to enable quicker - yet still well-reasoned, informed - decisions, while spreading that decision among 7 minds limits the amount of pointless wallowing we could do in the forums while still avoiding having a single driver.

In other words, it's too fast and not fast enough.
(No that's not a typo.)

P.S. Let's also remember that this is one big experiment, not a final saleable product. If we don't keep it experimental, we may lose the fun. Never forget the fun.

[Dominae]

I believe my suggestion of marking certain changes as "under consideration" solves the problem Nathan has brought up here.

I understand alexman's desire to get a first version of the mod out quickly (for one, it's easier to work from an existing mod than to start one anew). However, I agree that things are moving too quickly. So, as I've proposed, if we make it very clear which changes are "under consideration" (as opposed to those which are only "being discussed"), everyone gets a chance to have their say.

Remember that the panel was set up to end debate (allowing changes to move the implementation stage). It's just that, in the past few days, debate has been ended a bit prematurely.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

The problem is, we're trying to mix two different things. On one hand, it would be nice to have an initial version quickly. On the other, we have all these different ideas under discussion, some that we have a clear consensus on and some that we don't.

I think the best way to get our initial version quickly (without taking the time to go through the full formal process) would be to carry over the changes we want to keep from the PtW version, add the new ones where there is already a clear consensus around one particular approach, and defer anything else until the next version. That way we aren't pushing votes on issues that haven't been discussed adequately and we don't end up experimenting with as many different changes at once.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't mind ideas like making cavalry less powerful or keeping curaughs from establishing contact across a broad ocean in 2000 BC, because even when they are big, they fix real, meaningful game balance issues. But bringing Longevity into the industrial age just because people dislike how useless it is in the modern one was bad enough in terms of making changes for essentially whimsical reasons.

I guess this is where we really differ about. To me, a wonder that costs 1000 shields, yet is essentially useless is a 'real, meaningful game balance issue'.