THREAD MASTER'S WAR ROOM: Suggestions for Making the List/Running the Forum

[Jeje2]

I vote for 30 post/thread.

------------------
----------------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

[Lancer]

Thirty sounds good to me,but my thread is kinda short on posts but big on ideas.I think ppl managing larger threads should have more say.
WB Yin
Sorry to the person who sent me the email,I guess I should check it more often.

[the Octopus]

Let's keep the discussion on thread length in a single place, i.e. <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000064.html>here</a>, okay?


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

[the Octopus]

yin closed the standards thread after I started this reply.

Ted, I appreciate your post. I'll respond point by point, to try to explain my side of the issue.

"I became concerned when I saw your earlier use of words like "foolish" and "downright stupid"."

Do you actually disagree with what I've said, or are you simply objecting to the words I used? How do you think those statements should be phrased?

"I also was offended by Octo's use of the word "nuts"."

I didn't really want to get into that, but you guys are seriously overreacting. I had even intended it in a somewhat joking manner. I don't think that was even close to an "over the line" comment. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

"He seems rather rigid"

Yes.

"insistent on getting his own way"

No, but I understand why you think that.

"He also seems overly belligerent."

I, obviously, wouldn't say "overly", and I would say "argumentative", not "belligerent".

"However, it seems that Octo has plowed forward despite Yin's caveat about his position requiring unanimous consent."

Whether I was going to lead the discussion or not, the issues needed to be laid on the table. Since the primary concern I had was that people weren't coming to the thread to discuss things like this, I don't see how this criticism of yours can be answered, barring any comments of dissatisfaction with my selection or performance (which didn't materialize -- did you object to me before I posted the Standards thread, and if so, why didn't you object? Did you not have a chance because I started it too quickly? Since the party line is now "what yin says is law", I can't see how my actions can really be criticized, since I was complying with yin's request).

"Kind of ironic when you consider his vehement criticism of Yin for doing the same thing!"

I think the differences would be that precedent setting by yin is more important, since he has "power", and that yin made real, observable changes to something that couldn't be undone by any of us (the thread names), whereas I just posted a thread, which is well withing the powers of anyone who's got an Apolyton account.

"I've held back from posting in the "Standards" topic, mainly because of the comment that Octo made."

Do you mean the "that system is nuts" comment? If it is, I think you need to not take things so seriously.

"Also because I think he's jumped the gun."

Yin was leaving, and the low turnout in the War Room thread led me to believe that I couldn't expect much input. It has been hard enough to get you guys to contribute to real, meaningful discussions about how you will be running your threads (i.e. the Standards thread), how much response would I have gotten if I had posted "please post if you have a problem with me starting a standards thread". Aside from the e-mail from yin earlier this evening, this was the first indication I had that there was a problem.

"Although I do believe he is earnest"

Thank you.

"I question his ability to arrive at a consensus."

Groups arrive at consensus, people don't. I do question the ability of this group to arrive at consensus because we do not discuss things and we do not know how to make decisions as a group. I was not aware that people viewed me as a significant obstacle to finding consensus.

"With his "nuts" comment, he's demonstrated that he will not let his opinions stand on their own merits"

I felt that I had expressed the "merits" of my position by explaining why I was for the decimal system, and was simply voicing my strong dislike for JT's system.

"but also must put down and attack others as well."

I didn't call JT "nuts", I called the system "nuts". I think there is an important distinction there. I can think that JT has a bad idea without thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong with JT. Again, you want to read into my posts so you find them insulting when they were not meant to be that way. JT's post did not say that he was objecting to my wording. I thought that JT was objecting to my voicing of any opinion. Had JT explained that his objection to my post was the word "nuts", I would have said he was making a mountain out of a molehill and that I did not intend any offense. I think that my response is perfectly valid, however. It is possible for me to express my opinions and still be fair. I don't understand how any of you can be Thread Masters if you don't have that same feeling about yourselves.

"This might be appropriate if we were debating these ideas."

Which we were doing. Notice that my comment was in a post with lots of other personal opinions of mine, where I was stating my personal position on the issues that had been presented in the thread. I had thought it was pretty clear that these were my "personal" opinions, not "official" opinions.

"I appreciate your response. But the last thing I want to get involved in is locking horns with someone like Octo."

This is just personal opinion, but it is always better to hash out problems in the open than to wallow in resentment and bitterness. If I had known that people had such strong objections to my actions, perhaps I would have done things differently. If the rest of you don't feel that you can be frank and/or honest with me, then we cannot work together. I don't want people to be afraid to argue with me. If you feel that you are right and I am wrong on a particular issue, you should have the courage of your convictions. Make a case, and support it. Contrary to what you think, my arguments almost always are concrete and grounded in the facts and logic of the situation. If your feel the same about your arguments, you should have no fear of "locking horns" with me. If you think I am a name-calling jerk, then you have a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that to the world.

"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."

What is counterproductive are all these back-room deals and e-mails to everybody but the person who should see them. Maybe you prefer a pleasant exterior and a festering underlying relationship, but I think that is just as stupid on the net as in real life. If there are issues, they should be worked out.

"He's already dissed the idea of a central launching pad."

I said I thought it wasn't necessary, which I thought was your opinion.

If we can work out a system where the List threads are obvious by their names, I do question the utility of the "Launch Pad". I don't want to say that it wasn't a good job, but I don't know if there's a point, and I am a big proponent of never doing pointless work.

What is so controversial about this? How can you call this "dissing"? I said I thought it was a good job, but not worth the effort of maintaining.

"I am not one known to back down."

Nor am I. In the words of Han Solo: "I prefer a stand up fight to all this sneakin' around."


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

[the Octopus]

I want to explain my resignation a bit. I know that many/most of you will think that I have left in a huff because I feel I was undermined, or something like that. This is incorrect (although I know that there's nothing I can do to convince some of you that this isn't the case).

I left because I think that this organization is poorly formed, destined to be difficult to work under, and far too centralized. I think that the reliance on yin is misguided, since yin is as capable of mistakes as anyone else (as he has clearly demonstrated). I thought that we could form a more cooperative organization in which decisions were made by consensus (which doesn't mean you need to vote on everything, but does mean that you need to discuss everything). I thought yin held a similar view about how it should be organized (primarily because he said so in e-mails to me). In order for an organization like that to succeed, the participants need to be committed to making it work. It is clear to me now that this cannot be said about the Thread Masters as a group. I'm sorry that I misjudged you, because I was trying very hard to get you to live up to that system. I couldn't even single anyone out if I wanted to, because many people have contributed to this by not even coming to the table.

If you want to work in an organization where all decisions are made by one person, where that person has final say over everything, where one person is critical to the entire process, that is your right. I think it is foolish and misguided. I know from personal experience that an environment like that sucks. I also know from personal experience that working in an environment where my peers are unwilling to cooperate or discuss things is not fun. I know that it is stressful, and irritating. I also know that it is completely unnecessary, because cooperating and discussing is so easy. But, I suppose each of you will be able to make that determination on your own.

I am sorry that so much animosity has built up against me. I am even sorrier that this is the first I have heard about it. As parting advice, I'll tell you that if you have problems in the future, it is best to discuss the problem in the open, rather than behind closed doors. It should be no surprise to any of you that I was unaware of any problems that you had, since all of you were so consistently silent about them.

It has been pleasant working with some of you. I'm sorry that these differences of opinion make it necessary for me to leave. I wish you luck in compiling the list.


------------------
FORMER TECHNOLOGY THREAD MASTER

[tfs99]

Octo, I appreciate your response. Perhaps further elucidation is required.

"Do you mean the "that system is nuts" comment? If it is, I think you need to not take things so seriously."

"I didn't call JT "nuts", I called the system "nuts". I think there is an important distinction there. I can think that JT has a bad idea without thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong with JT. Again, you want to read into my posts so you find them insulting when they were not meant to be that way."

Actually the comment was directed squarely at JT. You mentioned him by name and he was also the only one advocating that particular system.

"I like the 1.09->1.10 system, followed by 1.9->1.10. I don't like the Arabic or Roman systems. (Also, I think JT's IV(3), LXV(19) system is nuts). I don't see any system that can be used to link the Arabic system to major list revisions."

I do not think it is over-reacting or taking things too seriously to object to this kind of comment. If I saw a thread master making a comment that "XXX's idea about &lt;insert some Civ3 issue here&gt; is nuts", I would find that equally objectionable. Wouldn't you? I'd also be offended by the use of words like "stupid", "foolish", "dumb", etc.

Like it or not, many people will interpret a "nuts" comment like this as an insulting attack. I am one of them.

"Whether I was going to lead the discussion or not, the issues needed to be laid on the table."

Yes, that is indisputable. But it seemed to me as if you were assuming an air of authority in the topic that you had started. Perhaps I was wrong in my assessment. As consent was indicated as a precondition by Yin, I felt that it was inappropriate for you to immediately assume that role. If I am the only one willing to "fall on my sword" in public to express this then so be it.

"Since the party line is now "what yin says is law", I can't see how my actions can really be criticized, since I was complying with yin's request"

If Yin did not possess the authority to confer authority upon you, then you were obligated to wait for feedback from your peers. If Yin does possess that authority then you were obligated to wait for his signal. From Yin's nomination post:

To be fair, of course, and to abide by the "Chill Factor," if people object to Octo's acting in this role--if he even wants it --please e-mail me. This should be a unanimous decision.

"Groups arrive at consensus, people don't."

Yes, but ultimately a moderator will step in and outline what the consensus appears to be. As I anticipated that an Organizational Leader would assume that role, in that sense, that is what I was expressing my doubts about.

""This might be appropriate if we were debating these ideas." Which we were doing."

It's easy to respond to this sentence, however my main point was in the next sentence. That is, leaders have no business insulting or rudely criticizing those from whom they are soliciting input, neither should they rudely comment on the input.

"I don't want people to be afraid to argue with me."

It's not an issue of fear. It's a lack of desire to argue with you or anyone else for that matter.

Besides, one should not have to argue with leaders. Leaders either recognize a consensus and lead in the direction people are inclined to go, or they lead by example, or they attempt to persuade. Leaders who argue with their consituents will rapidly find themselves without any to lead.

"What is counterproductive are all these back-room deals and e-mails to everybody but the person who should see them."

There were no backroom deals or anything similar if you meant it metaphorically. Personally, my e-mail traffic was limited to one short e-mail to Yin (he requested that we object by e-mail), one to JT (sympathizing with his posting, I felt it was appropriate to do so in private), and two responses to e-mail from Yin (they weren't from you, so I responded only to Yin).

"Maybe you prefer a pleasant exterior and a festering underlying relationship, but I think that is just as stupid on the net as in real life. If there are issues, they should be worked out."

I agree. But you resigned. I brought the issues out in the open at a time I felt was right. And it was before I had gotten any indication from Yin that others had objected. And it was before I got wind of your desire to resign. So there I was out in the open, but the issue was decided before any "working out" could take place.

"I said I thought [a launching pad] wasn't necessary, which I thought was your opinion."

No, my opinion was that, though functional and handy if you knew where to look, a "launch pad" lacked value if no one could find it. I had already suggested adding a prominent link to it in the header of every Master List topic. No one openly concurred, including yourself. Therefore I concluded that further maintenance of it was wasted effort, since no one would ever find it. Since no one spoke up in favor of the link idea, I did not want to beat a dead horse.

"What is so controversial about this? How can you call this "dissing"?"

To me: Saying "I do question the utility [of it]" means that you think it's not useful, that is, useless.

To me: Saying "I don't know if there's a point" means that you think it's pointless. In fact you use that very word in the following sentence.

How would you feel if someone called something you worked hard on "useless and pointless"? It upset me. And I don't think my reaction was out of line. In my book, implying something is useless and pointless is "dissing".

"I said I thought it was a good job"

Here is what you actually said:

I don't want to say that it wasn't a good job

Not exactly a glowing recommendation. In fairness, this could be interpreted as mildly positive as well as being merely neutral.

"In the words of Han Solo: "I prefer a stand up fight to all this sneakin' around.""

I'll try hard not to take too much offense from this citation. Am I wrong in believing that you are accusing me and perhaps others of "sneakin' around"? If I am, why the heck did you write this? If I'm not, am I wrong to be offended by it?

Does one private e-mail to Yin constitute sneaking around (when Yin asked for objections to be issued that way)? And how conveniently you ignore my response to Yin where I offered to withdraw my objection!

Smeagol don't like being called a sneak!

Civ3 n ... Ted S.

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

[the Octopus]

"Actually the comment was directed squarely at JT. You mentioned him by name and he was also the only one advocating that particular system."

It was aimed squarely at the idea put forward by JT. I freely grant that if you want to read the comment as personal and derogatory, you could do that if you wanted to, but I don't see why you want to.

"I do not think it is over-reacting or taking things too seriously to object to this kind of comment."

I do. People say things like this all the time. I'm sorry if you can't take the comment in the lighthearted manner it was offered.

"As consent was indicated as a precondition by Yin, I felt that it was inappropriate for you to immediately assume that role."

My actions were primarily motivated by the e-mail I got from yin. To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to the post, because I had already gotten the gist of the idea through e-mail:
"I think we understand each other now.  You are right, of course, that I acted too hastily.  I will learn to "chill" while the Thread Masters and others decide by majority forum business.

"In fact, I'd like to ask you to be the leader of gathering forum opinion, since you feel the strongest about it and have put so much time into the forum."

"Yes, but ultimately a moderator will step in and outline what the consensus appears to be."

I think that you should have more than enough evidence that I do not consciously distort the views of others if you simply look at the technology threads. I strongly disagree with some of the ideas in there, but I think I have been more or less fair. Someone crticized my for my comments about Bell's system, but I would be surprised if Bell felt that I was currently treating him unfairly (although I still haven't given a summary that does his system justice).

"That is, leaders have no business insulting or rudely criticizing those from whom they are soliciting input, neither should they rudely comment on the input."

As should be clear, I disagree with the characterization that my comments were "rude". I feel perfectly justified in having and expressing personal opinions, even in a position of "leadership". As I said, I understand the difference between personal opinion and action in an official capacity. I'm not sure why you don't find that compelling, or at least mitigating.

"It's a lack of desire to argue with you or anyone else for that matter."

If you don't discuss something, there is no way for it to get resolved.

"I agree. But you resigned. I brought the issues out in the open at a time I felt was right. And it was before I had gotten any indication from Yin that others had objected. And it was before I got wind of your desire to resign."

I wish I had saved a copy of the e-mail I sent to yin which he accpeted as my resignation...

I said, specifically, that I found it hard to believe that a majority of the Thread Masters felt that the only way to have a discussion was to have yin in charge. I said that if this was the case then I could not be a part of this organization. When I got the reply "Octopus has resigned", I had assumed this meant there was some sort of consensus. If this isn't the case, I think that the rest of you should be even more wary of yin's actions.

The first I heard of any problem was earlier tonight. In an e-mail from yin, this basically sums up the problem: "Don't you think you can still do all the same things and be just a productive if we just say: "O.K. Let's just discuss all this stuff and make sure Yin knows how we feel."" I find the notion that the thread masters could make a decision and that it would carry no more weight than a mere suggestion to be completely offensive. I found yin's representation that this opinion was shared by a substantial majority, if not all, of the thread masters, to be completely offensive. I found the notion that the Thread Masters had so little interest in working a problem out to be repugnant.

"In fairness, this could be interpreted as mildly positive as well as being merely neutral."

Which is what I meant. I thought that your presentation was nice, and that you did a good job, but that I didn't think people were using it, and didn't think they would really need to in this forum. When we were in the other forum, it was probably much more useful (we weren't there long enough to really say for certain, but it certainly seems like it would have been useful). I'm sorry if this opinion is somehow hurtful to you, but I honestly don't think it is necessary. I prefaced my remark with "I don't want to say it wasn't a good job" to explain that I wasn't opposed to it on grounds of quality, or anything like that, merely that I didn't think people wanted/needed to use it, so it didn't make much sense to me to do the work to maintain it. If you still find this offensive, please tell me how I can say this in a non-offensive manner.

"Am I wrong in believing that you are accusing me and perhaps others of "sneakin' around"?"

Not so much sneaking as not participating in a "stand-up fight". I definitely got the impression from yin's mail that there was a lot more to this than I was aware of. I defnitely think that things should have been brought to my attention before anything else was done. This should have been discussed in the forums, where everybody could see what people thought, not over private e-mail.

"If I'm not, am I wrong to be offended by it?"

Yes, once again you are reading too much into things. Quotes are never 100% on the money, I was focusing on the first half (which I thought was clear, since I was using it in support of the statement "I am not one known to back down").

"And how conveniently you ignore my response to Yin where I offered to withdraw my objection!"

I ignored it because I didn't really understand the context, or the follow-up.


------------------
FORMER TECHNOLOGY THREAD MASTER

[DanS]

C'mon guys, have a little tougher skin. If we're trying to get things done quickly and well, we will have to let the water flow under the bridge, not over it.

I don't like that Octopus resigned. He was/is a valued member of the team and it's just plain stupid to ask him to leave. Allow yourselves to be berated by him a little. It's worth it. If he is not a Thread Master, he can be Master of Ceremonies.

Octopus, are you in the middle of coding that perl script that plucks posts from threads? Please finish it. It will help everyone out. I don't care to do pointless work. Even though yin26 yells at you now, I'm sure he will thank you when it saves him 2 weeks down the road.

[Pythagoras]

I do agree with some of Octopus's points. There are some poor organizational issues that need to be addressed - Some of the threads are reduntant and need to be merged. We originally started out with about 5 thread ideas, now we are approaching 30 (about). So much that my thread "ECONOMICS/TRADE" is not visible anymore. Perhaps "Religion" and "Space Exploitation" could be discussed in "Radical Ideas" since that does sound radical to include in a Civ game. Also "Game Atmosphere" and "Interface" are very similar, and perhaps should be merged. There was also a "City Resource Management" that would best fit with my "Economics/Trade" thread, since in my first post I roughly described economics as the collection/distribution of all resources, including internal city shield/food/trade.

That being said, I will still maintain my position here as thread master, but with all these redundant threads floating around its getting VERY complicated.

We want to simplify this for Bryan Reynolds not complicate it.

------------------
"I think you're all f*cked in the head!"
Chevy Chase-Nat'l Lampoon's Vacation.

[yin26]

This thread is too long, so I'm going to open a new suggestion thread. Please visit it and continue to make suggestions. I thank you.

Yin

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

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

[tfs99]

>>>>> DanS

Couldn't agree with you more. That's why I said what I did about arguing. It's a big time waster.

Civ3 n ... Ted S.

[EnochF]

Could somebody please close the Wonders 1.0 thread?

[Ming]

So little time, so much to do...

We shouldn't spend the time we have arguing.
It's no surprise that tempers have flared, and that people don't agree... That's life.
Whenever you put this many number of people together, there will be disagreements.

Let's all remember what we are trying to do here. Help them design a game that WE ALL want to play. Many of the suggestions I have read through are great... some I don't agree with... But it isn't our decision what THEY put into the game. It's our job to present them with ALL the thinking. They can take what they want or ignore everything. I'm just glad that we have a way to tell them what we "THINK" would be good. No idea should ever be shot down (maybe moved to the most appropriate thread)
Let's show them how many people cared enough to suggest things... Let's show them how much we appreciate being included in something we all care about... Let's show them EVERYBODIES best thinking...
Whether they use any of it or not doesn't matter... They will know we care.

So let's get back to the job at hand.
All should be forgiven... we can't afford to lose anybody that is willing to work.
I respect all the volunteers... because they gave their time freely... Let's all remember that.

Thank you... enough from this high horse today.