Krill wants to be the game historian. Discuss.......

[RobWorham]

Originally posted by Krill
After that little bit of verbal sparring with Con I think I can offer to be the game historian, writing up the game and describing the events for each of the teams as the game progresses, for release after the end of the game. Of course, I wouldn't post in the private forums (except, preferably, in a dedicated topped thread where I can ask any relevent questions to the history), nor would I be involved as game admin (which I'm not offering to do).

It's up really to each team to agree to it, there isn't much point in me doing it if one team don't want me to do it...

Does anyone have any opinions on this?????

[Nugog]

Why?

What is the point?

Meh - sulky sod doesn't want to run a team because one decision goes against him - now he wants to get involved with each team?

MEH!

[Nugog]

Remind me to edit this if we agree to let him in.

[GeoModder]

@Nugog
In every demogame I participated in the past, the "historian" was about the first to disappear. As long as there's an "open forum" tradition for after the game is finished, I don't really see the point.
After all, it's the better part of 3 years before this game might finish. That's quite a long-term involvement for somebody who isn't really part of the experience.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I'm going to say something as a word of caution here.

There was, once upon a time, a civ III demogame. There was a poll about game historian/mod (myself) being allowed access to all forums.

One team declined said access, and there was really no point in attempting a history with only part of a story, so of course I went away.

Year or two later I get this little PM. Seems there was a bit of a tizzy in said game, and a whole lot of one bad apple spoils the bunch. Talk of permabans, talk of disallowing certain folks access to demogames for life.

Now, just so happens that bad apple was on the team that didn't want the historian to have access. And, ever since, there has been this perception that any team voting against such a thing is likely trying to hide some shady activities.

Is there really a purpose to having an overseer? Probably not. But, neither does it hurt.

Since there is no advantage either way, may as well allow it and avoid any misconceptions.

[Nugog]

I see your point Uno - and welcome to the RoC!

[Chuckman]

I really don't know this Krill myself. But, if you vouch that he isn't a bad carrot that is good enough for me.

[Zoid]

I don't see the point of a game historian really. And since we're not going to cheat or do anything nasty (except in-game if we are provoked ) there will be no comparison with ancient DG history...

[FeMme]

I see no particular need for a game historian. Are we really going to look back on this game in the years to come or are we going to be engrossed in the latest CIV7 demogame??

However, I also don't see any real reason to oppose a game historian. As long as no information is disclosed before the game is finished. I also think it is quite unlikely that someone will continue to follow a game that they are not directly involved in for up to 3 years so it may be a short-lived experience for all.

[Nugog]

But do we want to be spoilsports.......

Shall we just say yes and be done with it.

I agree with those who have stated that it is highly unlikely that the Historian will be around in 2 years or so.

[GeoModder]

Meh, make it a poll then.

[GeoModder]

:bump:

Com'on people, let's get some opinions from the lurkers here.

[Dave_Shack]

I lean toward the "nothing to hide, move along" approach.

[fed1943]

I see no problem.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Let 'im in.