Sarantium

[Rhothaerill]

All right E_N I have a few questions for you.

I want you to know up front that it's not looking good for you so far. The members of Sarantium that have commented so far don't particularly care for your posts about RL and non-English speakers, as well as your statements about not being afraid of posting stuff on the main forum that the team might not want.

I'd like to hear your opinion on how you would get along with a team of people that is wholly comprised of professionals in various fields in RL and who will not hesitate to put this democracy game on the back burner if RL suddenly becomes more important.

I'd also like to hear your opinion of why you believe that people who don't communicate clearly in English all the time are somehow "lesser" than those who do. I'm an American through and through, but Apolyton is a multi-cultural site made of posters from around the world. Many of the people participating in this and other demogames don't speak English as a first language and many of them are damn good civ players.

And finally I'd like to know about you as a team player. Many of your posts in this forum so far could be seen as being very divisive. Most of us wouldn't have a problem with you disagreeing with us. That's not the problem. We need to know if you can be a team player and respect the wishes of the team as a whole if the team does not agree with you, or if the team asks you not to post something in the main forum before running it by the team.

Even if you answer these I can't guarantee that Sarantium will accept you, but it might help. So I look forward to hearing your answers.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Rhothaerill
I'd like to hear your opinion on how you would get along with a team of people that is wholly comprised of professionals in various fields in RL and who will not hesitate to put this democracy game on the back burner if RL suddenly becomes more important.

Are said 'professionals' able to inform us of when they are away from the game, and will they assign replacements (or have a contingency plan) in the event that this occurs?
If so, there shouldn't be a problem.
If not, then as long as they're not in positions of importance, there still shouldn't be a problem.

but if you appoint someone to power who is prone to leaving without a word, then that would create problems - and if they knowingly accept such a position without the responsibility, then they shouldn't be called 'professionals' in the first place.

I'd also like to hear your opinion of why you believe that people who don't communicate clearly in English all the time are somehow "lesser" than those who do.

Because being able to send information back and forward across various departments, and swapping orders and recon from troops to command, are vital to victory.

Apolyton is a multi-cultural site made of posters from around the world. Many of the people participating in this and other demogames don't speak English as a first language and many of them are damn good civ players.

If they need a translator to be useful to the team and our translator is prone to going AFK for 'professional' reasons, then they're not all that useful, are they?

Please think before you assume that all people have a right to play. Emotionally reacting to a logical issue such as "only accept people into the team that can understand our plans" will hurt you if you later emotionally react to diplomacy which would otherwise be 'Pure business'.

And finally I'd like to know about you as a team player.

The chance of me being productive is directly proportional to the team's intolerance of poor players.
When I worked at ANSTO (Aussie Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), I had no problems. But I got fired from MacDonalds.

Most of us wouldn't have a problem with you disagreeing with us.

That's completely false. People are emotionally weak, and will get offended if I disagree with them.
Hell, even in this thread you're taking issue with me disagreeing on your opinion that Non-english speakers should have a place in this DG.

You like to think you're Amiable, but that's just a lie told to you by your friends that you believe because you are amiable towards them.
You are not Amiable. You are close-minded, support only your friends' core viewpoints and will invent excuses as to why you don't support mine, such as 'political correctness' or other such nonsense.

Now tell me - do you have a Problem with what I've said in the above 2 paragraphs? Would your team have a problem with what I've said? I thought so.
I apologise for offending you, but I've made my point.
I like debunking emotional assumptions such as these - you might consider me a 'professional' on the human condition.

We need to know if you can be a team player and respect the wishes of the team as a whole if the team does not agree with you, or if the team asks you not to post something in the main forum before running it by the team.

On mundane matters such as where to move the settler or who we declare war on, you can.
On serious matters such as which teams and players you think are good and bad, I won't speak on your team's behalf but I will not agree with your team's opinion.

On matters such as whether it's right or wrong for me to support a manipulative stance, you've got no chance. While I don't expect you to follow my opinions, and I don't plan to speak as if you did, there will be drama if you think I should change my feelings to be in line with your team.

Even if you answer these I can't guarantee that Sarantium will accept you, but it might help. So I look forward to hearing your answers.

Well, here are my answers.
Again, sorry for offending you to prove a point - but my opinions are worth more than your feelings, IMO.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

You like to think you're Amiable, but that's just a lie told to you by your friends that you believe because you are amiable towards them.
You are not Amiable. You are close-minded, support only your friends' core viewpoints and will invent excuses as to why you don't support mine, such as 'political correctness' or other such nonsense.

Now tell me - do you have a Problem with what I've said in the above 2 paragraphs?

This is fascinating. Where did Rhoth give an indication of being close-minded?

[Enigma_Nova]

He didn't, nor did he need to - for that's what every person is, Golden Bear.
I know this from experience, so I can't convince you. Maybe you'll convince yourself of it eventually, though.

[Aeson]

Close-minded is a relative term. For it to have any meaning it needs something to be judged by. Open-minded (which btw is the antonym for "close-minded", not amiable) is the same way. Neither by themselves mean anything. The meaning is in their relation to each other (or rather a control).

That is to say, if everyone is close-minded, or everyone is open-minded, or everyone is any "minded", then there is no differentiation on how people are "minded". If you use the terms in that sense "close-minded" and "open-minded" are one and the same. Simply identifiers that apply to everyone equally because they have absolutely no meaning. This is the sense you are using "close-minded", and it is a useless sense of the term outside trying to make inflamatory statements with word plays off of reasonable usage.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

Are said 'professionals' able to inform us of when they are away from the game, and will they assign replacements (or have a contingency plan) in the event that this occurs?
If so, there shouldn't be a problem.
If not, then as long as they're not in positions of importance, there still shouldn't be a problem.

but if you appoint someone to power who is prone to leaving without a word, then that would create problems - and if they knowingly accept such a position without the responsibility, then they shouldn't be called 'professionals' in the first place.

No, they (and I'm including myself) might not be able to inform us all if they have to go on extended leave from the game. But that's why this is a democracy game not a PBEM. You have multiple people to do the work.

As to the word professional, I do believe you already know the context in which I put that word, but you have deliberately taken it out of that context to suit your designs. "Professional" as I meant it is people who have jobs, own businesses, etc. in RL, and that is generally more valuable than playing a game. "Professional" as I meant it has no meaning in Civilization.

Because being able to send information back and forward across various departments, and swapping orders and recon from troops to command, are vital to victory.

And fun? Where did that go? Many of us are here to have fun. Yes, we want to win. But not all of us care to suck out the fun of the game to win. The fun was sucked out of another game recently, and no one won. I'd say that everyone lost in that one.

If they need a translator to be useful to the team and our translator is prone to going AFK for 'professional' reasons, then they're not all that useful, are they?

Perhaps not to you. Others may think differently.

Please think before you assume that all people have a right to play. Emotionally reacting to a logical issue such as "only accept people into the team that can understand our plans" will hurt you if you later emotionally react to diplomacy which would otherwise be 'Pure business'.

Who said it was an emotional reaction.

That's completely false. People are emotionally weak, and will get offended if I disagree with them.
Hell, even in this thread you're taking issue with me disagreeing on your opinion that Non-english speakers should have a place in this DG.

You like to think you're Amiable, but that's just a lie told to you by your friends that you believe because you are amiable towards them.
You are not Amiable. You are close-minded, support only your friends' core viewpoints and will invent excuses as to why you don't support mine, such as 'political correctness' or other such nonsense.

Now tell me - do you have a Problem with what I've said in the above 2 paragraphs? Would your team have a problem with what I've said? I thought so.
I apologise for offending you, but I've made my point.
I like debunking emotional assumptions such as these - you might consider me a 'professional' on the human condition.

Fine. I disagree with you. On many points actually. Once again you've taken things out of the context in which I asked it to turn it around into something approaching a flame. My context was that if we speak about a point in this game and you disagree, we would still take your words into consideration and act on the situation as a team. But I begin to question if you would do the same without twisting our disagreement around to suit your purpose.

On mundane matters such as where to move the settler or who we declare war on, you can.
On serious matters such as which teams and players you think are good and bad, I won't speak on your team's behalf but I will not agree with your team's opinion.

On matters such as whether it's right or wrong for me to support a manipulative stance, you've got no chance. While I don't expect you to follow my opinions, and I don't plan to speak as if you did, there will be drama if you think I should change my feelings to be in line with your team.

I think I understand what your position is on this matter.

Well, here are my answers.
Again, sorry for offending you to prove a point - but my opinions are worth more than your feelings, IMO.

I suggest that you begin to seek another team. Looking at the discussion in our private forum I do not believe you will be approved, though I will wait for our leadership to comment first. I daresay you're burning bridges very quickly in this game with your posts, and that is a shame. I said before you could have been a breath of fresh air to a team, and I even defended you to a point in my own team, but it is unlikely you'll be that breath of fresh air to this team.

Be very careful as you proceed. Your stance of being the "only individual willing to speak up" may leave you as the only individual without a team in this game. Perhaps another team will allow you to join. If not, don't come crying back to us.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Frankly, I'll come out and say here what I said in closed forum chat:

I don't want someone this obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative, or arrogant on my team. The last several posts only clearly illustrates everything I am concerned with.

....I already fill all those positions for Sarantium.

[PLATO]

Isn't Enigma_Nova already on your membership list?

[Kloreep]

Anyone can join the CivGroup who wants, they just need authorization to get into the private forum.

Also, the member count only uses authorized members. You can see that Sarantium is shown as having 11 members, but has 14 people in the civgroup.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Anyone can join the CivGroup who wants, they just need authorization to get into the private forum.

Also, the member count only uses authorized members. You can see that Sarantium is shown as having 11 members, but has 14 people in the civgroup.

Thanks Kloreep. I never knew it worked that way

[Golden Bear]

Sorry, E_N, I tried to give you room to dig out of your hole.

You are proving the law of consequences - you can do or say pretty much whatever you want as long as you are willing to face the consequences.


Golden Bear

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Anyone can join the CivGroup who wants, they just need authorization to get into the private forum.

Also, the member count only uses authorized members. You can see that Sarantium is shown as having 11 members, but has 14 people in the civgroup.

Ooooh. If I apply to the Horde, I can be listed as a Hordian!!! Goody!

Oh, my brother Horde-ites, come embrace in the group hug of, uh, Hordeness!




Don't worry, you are safe from me.

[Enigma_Nova]

EDIT: I'll send Rhoth the PM. No need to start a Flame War when only two people are involved.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
I don't want someone this obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative, or arrogant on my team. The last several posts only clearly illustrates everything I am concerned with.

....I already fill all those positions for Sarantium.

And you're concerned that I'll overfill those positions, right?
I'm too good for a team that thinks you can have 'too much' arrogance, anyway.

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Sorry, E_N, I tried to give you room to dig out of your hole.

What hole? What are you sorry about?
/me is considerably confused

You are proving the law of consequences - you can do or say pretty much whatever you want as long as you are willing to face the consequences.

And the consequences of expressing opinions that a team disagrees with means I don't belong in the team.
... So what? It's not like I'd join a team that opposed my beliefs anyway.

[proviisori]

I would like to ask that have you decided about my membership to Sarantium?

I don't have much experience from demogames but I promise that I try not to be obnoxious, abrasive, argumentative, or arrogant.