Standardizing the List Process

[the Octopus]

Atahualpa: "Why not merge some threads in different forums. Graphics/Units/Atmosphere get an own forum..."

I'm not sure I agree with that, multiple forums might make things more complicated. Also, Mark has been indulgent enough giving us this forum, I don't think we should push our luck.

However, there does seem to be a trend to want to "splinter" the discussions rather than keep them together (for example, the thread <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000074.html>But, do we really need this many topics?</a>, which was curiously started by Stefu, who is is the Thread Master of <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000027.html>RELIGION (ver1.0): Hosted by Stefu</a> which broke off from <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000070.html>SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT</a>. Another example is Monolith94's desire to start a cross-platform thread. I think people are confusing "strength of feeling" with "need for a thread". As I said elsewhere, I have a hard time thinking of anything beyond Linux, Mac, and NT that would show up in the cross-platform thread (I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, this is just the most recent example).

Having said all that, I don't know how we can resolve this "issue", or even frame it. Is there a problem? If so, is there a solution? If there is a problem, is it a crisis, or just something to be concerned about long-term? Have any thread masters noticed problems with their threads specifically (for example, the recent <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000069.html>RESOURCE MANAGEMENT</a> thread vs. <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000071.html>REGIONAL MENU & CITY MENU IDEAS - hosted by Shining1</a>)?

Do we need to establish a process for determining which threads are needed, and which have overlap with other threads, or too narrow a scope?


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[yin26]

Regarding thread closing, I will make it simple:

Thread Masters please e-mail me that you'd like your thread closed. Please include the title of the thread to make it easier for me. Please post in your thread that the thread is closed (THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED) and then please start a new thread, using the (v1.1) method--no more switching that around!

This will allow Thread Masters to decide if starting a new thread at a certain point is counterproductive.

As for the rest of the issues on the table, let's continue with the Thread Titles as we have it now (unless there's some good majority feeling that we should change it). For thread summaries, PLEASE study the other Thread Masters' styles and see for yourself what you think is best--we will make some formal decisions on style a bit later.

Something to think about, though: Heavy use of links in your posts will not translate when we put the final list together because I want Brian to get a .doc file so he can print it out and use the list off-line. So, unless there's is something I'm missing on this point, please get in the habit of a least thinking about how you are going to write summaries w/o using links.

Finally, I just sent Octo an e-mail in which I explained that I received serveral e-mails voicing concern that I should not elect any one person to head the standardization of our work: I should do it since I am the most impartial (I'm not running any threads) and I started this whole damn thing ( ), so I should be the one to gather opinions and implement necessary changes.

If you haven't already, Thread Masters, you will receive an e-mail from me with more detail about these issues.

However, unless there is some argument to the contrary, Octo's thread here seems to be generating some good discussion, so please continue discussing things here (and by e-mail, as I'll explain in my e-mail).

At any rate, I'm VERY happy to see more time being spent on the issue of Organization. I have, of course, a few dedicated Thread Masters to thank for trying to keep us on the same page in regard to how we organize.

Yin

[yin26]

Let me just clarify the links issue:

Links are necessary now in order to lead people to the right places w/o wasting space in your summary--my only point is that you should make sure that you realize the final summaries you'll have to write can't use links: So I don't want to surprise anybody.



[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 24, 1999).]

[yin26]

By the way, I was just looking at Octo's Tech summary (great work, btw, Octo). I think this is the right way to summarize: CAPITAL letters with the idea/issue and then a concise summary--not more than 5-6 lines if possible. Many of you are doing this now or a slightly modified version, but I offer a piece of Octo's summary as a potential stadard for us to follow:

1) REDUNDANT TECHS -- have multiple different ways to achieve the same in-game effect (say, a 2-1-1 unit or a "makes one unhappy person content" building) with different technological paths (for example, either "Religious Fanatacism" or "Professional Standing Army" techs might allow the 2-1-1 unit over the 1-1-1 unit). This allows different civilizations to take a less "cookie-cutter" approach to technological development, since there are no longer an "vital" technologies.

2) MULTIPLE PATHS TO A PARTICULAR ADVANCE -- Instead of having rigid prerequisites, allow several different ways to achieve a particular advance (for example, the prerequisite for "Labor Union" might be "Capitalism" and "Assembly Line", because the workers band together naturally to fight for rights, OR "Communism" and "Mass Media", because the communist activists are able to convince large numbers of workers to bargain collectively. However, "Capitalism" and "Mass Media" wouldn't do anything to advance "Labor Unions" without the other techs.).

3) RANDOM!!!! -- As long as there are multiple paths to each tech, there can be a probability that each path may or may not exist in a particular game. This adds to the excitement, and also the realism, since you can never quite be sure what your scientists will come up with until they come up with it.

4) CONCEPTS vs. APPLICATIONS -- Instead of an "all techs are equivalent" way of looking at the world, break techs into "concepts" and "applications". A "concept" might be "Gunpowder", while an "application" might be "Musket" or "Tunnel Construction".

What do you guys think? This is essentially the same format I used to give Brian the SMAC list, and he enjoyed that one a great deal...so if it aint broke... . Your thoughts?

[the Octopus]

No doubt people will question my impartiality about this next statement, but I feel compelled to make it anyway: It is a foolish precedent to say that a discussion can only be productive if yin takes an active and leading role. I feel that we Thread Masters should be able to self-govern ourselves in a better fashion. If there are concerns about that way I've been "running" this thread, I am concerned that no one has voiced them to me. Why is it so difficult for us to understand that disucssions are important, and that I have been as aggressive as I have in pursuing this because I believe that the issues really need to be resolved, not because I'm trying to establish some kind of pecking-order? Making this whole process completely dependent on yin is downright stupid (and I'm not going to attempt to find a more diplomatic way to phrase that, because it is completely accurate). The semi-chaos caused by yin's business trip should be more than enough evidence for that.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[yin26]

Octo,

I understand your points, but it has to be important that if people generally agree to do something a certain way, we should follow it. Of course, I'll need to invest more time to stay on top of all the issues and opinions, and yes this business trip SUCKS!, but I need you to follow the majority sentiment here on this.

I feel your arguments for the need for more structure have contibuted greatly to this project, as has your thread here and the example I just quoted for summaries. If you are really angered by this majority feeling, please e-mail me so we can discuss it further.

Octo, "stupid" or not, that's what people are most comfortable with, so that's what we should do. Can you work with me on this point? And it would do no good to make a general election for this work because then we are in the same position all over again.

Rest assured, I am committed to making this project work. In fact, I'm at a 24 hour Kinko's in Denver right now doing this at $12/hour for the computer charge. I AM dedicated to you guys and your opinions--and this in the only business trip I'll be taking for a while, so please have faith that I can act in all our best interests in getting us to agree on things.

Remember, the cooperation and willingness to decide on these issues STILL rests on you guys. I'm just going to do a better job of nagging you all.

[tfs99]

>>>>> Octopus

I hesitate to post this, but since you expressed concern that our concerns have not been voiced to you, I thought you might want to see, verbatim, some of the concerns I have expressed to others about the situation.

Even so, I still would not have posted this, except I became concerned when I saw your earlier use of words like "foolish" and "downright stupid".

When you read this, consider the source and keep it in perspective. Just the thoughts of one person.

Civ3 n ... Ted S.

From an e-mail to JT:

I also was offended by Octo's use of the word "nuts". I'm glad you responded the way you did. It's things like this incident that led me to write the following to Yin yesterday when he nominated Octo for his position:

"I can't support the idea of Octopus in this position. He seems rather rigid and insistent on getting his own way. He also seems overly belligerent."

However, it seems that Octo has plowed forward despite Yin's caveat about his position requiring unanimous consent. Oh well. Kind of ironic when you consider his vehement criticism of Yin for doing the same thing!

I've held back from posting in the "Standards" topic, mainly because of the
comment that Octo made. Also because I think he's jumped the gun. Although I do believe he is earnest, I question his ability to arrive at a consensus.

With his "nuts" comment, he's demonstrated that he will not let his opinions stand on their own merits, but also must put down and attack others as well. This might be appropriate if we were debating these ideas. However, it certainly is NOT appropriate when one assumes the mantle of leadership.

From a response to Yin:

Don't put it to a vote solely on my account. If no one else objects, I'll withdraw my objection.

From another response to Yin:

I appreciate your response. But the last thing I want to get involved in is locking horns with someone like Octo. It's bad enough at the Game Forum on SMAC with the "blah-hating" Nazis and snooty "veterans" and would be totally counter productive for the CivIII task at hand.

It seems to me that even acting in an unofficial capacity would put me straight in Octo's line of fire. He's already dissed the idea of a central launching pad. So I'm seeing a bit of red over that one.

Even "diplomatic patience" has its limits. I am not one known to back down.

[This message has been edited by tfs99 (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Shining1]

Standardisation is something for later, though it seems most threads are doing pretty well. So long as an occasional summary arrives at the summary thread, everything else seems okay.

Despite the Yinnish way (sorry Yin, couldn't resist ) Octo has gone about pushing this, his summary formating is actually quite good. Bell's is better, but I don't know the HTML, and, to be honest, don't see the need for it. And yin makes the point about not including HTML stuff in the final list.

May I suggest that any threadmasters running threads that seem to have two more or less seperate issues in them summarise them seperately? And that thread summaries be kept organised so that one area only is covered at a time, rather than just presenting a list of suggestions. It takes a bit more work, BUT the results are worthwhile - you get a 'work in progress' that contributors can easily understand.

I would strongly push the idea of summarising everything at the start of a thread, and editing that post regularly. This way saves space (nothing is repeated) and makes the current summary very easy to find.

Otherwise, the main problem seems to be the proliferation of threads in this forum - it is getting difficult to find things.

Shining1

[yin26]

First, I have just accepted Octo's resignation. Please see your e-mail.

Second, does anybody have a good idea for making things easier to find on the forum?

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**