Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caterina Sforza
The failure of Sunset wasn't a result of flame wars persé but rather because Barry stopped the game because of lack of time and players simply had no time or interest. (sadly so)
That's not what Barry told me or what I observed. Oz did a pretty good job of putting people in places where they could RP in a manner and with other players they liked. Britain was doing quite well and then everything abruptly ground to a halt.
Quote:
What is that ''imperial attitude'' you are speaking off in the first place?
Stifling paternalism that destroys player autonomy.
Quote:
Then say here what you want to be discussed, we can't know what you want if you only say things by private messages in discord. I also disagree with the latter, you blame of a lack of self awareness but i'm seeing this problem more with you.
The problem is with leadership. LM isn't interested in half the games played and in the other half of the games he plays in we often end up waiting for his replies because he takes important characters. He'll be off playing CK2 and we'll all be left in the lurch in the meantime. BF has one or two days per week max where he can even be online.
Quote:
For example you pushed your American setting through our throat while the community was not consulted whether we were interested or not. You didn't ask us we wanted that specific setting to be played or not.
I posted a public poll and received enough interest (I needed 4-6 players) to move forward with writing rules. One of the problems here is that so many of us still are under the false assumption that we have to create games where 10-15 people are needed to play. Nobody but me, I think, has realized that is a bad way to go. I started YATS in the same way and it had a good run (I needed six but ended up with 11) in the autumn and BP is still alive and kicking. So far BP has lasted longer than Sunset and GoT and shows no signs of trouble at all. We have five players. Nothing was shoved down the community's throat. I offered an alternative to 4-5 more players to join me in a setting that hasn't been tried for five years over...nothing. No other proposals were floating around at the time. I spoke with Barry and he said Sunset was on an indefinite hiatus. And since I refuse to join the RPG discord for obvious reasons, I don't feel like I did anything wrong at all in making my proposals. You could have actually posted your concerns in the weeks the thread was open. I can't read minds.
LM did the same things with Eldar Scrolls. Am I supposed to complain that he didn't communicate his intentions to do so with me directly? Of course not. If people want to work on games that helps everyone. If you want to join us on Whiskey I can send you a link, you'd be welcome.
To summarize, the most important takeaway here is that we do not need consensus or even a majority of players to agree on what game to play. We need games that require fewer people so they stay viable for longer periods of time. Besides, let's stop pretending that nobody secretly works on games and then rolls out a proposal, that's how 2017 started with everyone abandoning GoT for WOTR.
Quote:
It is not about whether we accuse somebody of cheating through self moderation but rather about the principle. Self moderating has contributed to the flame wars because of a lack of trust in the community and it led to people accusing each other. By removing this we take this source of concern away. And no self moderation is not the only option, you wait for somebody else to moderate and if you find it takes to long, recruit or reach out to other mods. Stop playing the victim.
I would have killed for another moderator for YATS. I asked constantly. Nobody volunteered to help out in a substantial way. What, praytell, was I supposed to do? Killed off one of my own characters and burned the other one's bank down in the first few turns by the way. Sooo much evidence of cheating.
Quote:
Also perhaps we need some measure of control on games because if we let everyone do what they want we will see dozens of half baked ass games/proposals like GTSK revival 80000 or settings launched through our throats we have no interest and have no long term chance of survival. You seem to be all for Quantity over Quality, those games backed and regulated by the Shed tend to be much better in rules and have generally proved to have a higher chance of long term survival than those games/proposals pushed through our throat like BP or GSTK revival 400000000. This isn't the free market you know
Stop using extreme examples to justify your argument. By your standards, BP was shoved down everyone's throats too in spite of it requiring so few players and so far we've outlasted two "officially sanctioned" games. There are only at most two game proposals going on right now, one of which has been abandoned since I'm done using TWC as a platform for my games and I don't trust the shed to do the proper thing any more. It absolutely is the free market, and I've taken my business elsewhere. Choosing to participate in a game is a voluntary transaction. In the next few weeks/days I'm probably going to add a Rome or Crusader game on my forum. People should feel free to join and play if they want to.
Quote:
So what's the alternative? More self moderating? whether self moderating is fairly done our not it has proved to a source of concern because it leads to flame wars and distrust. Self moderating isn't the perfect solution you seem to imagine. We are on the internet after all, a place we say whatever we want, hence why we need regulation.
Of course not. The perfect solution is to have enough active moderators in every game to get everything done in a timely fashion without any possibility of bias. Self moderation is a last resort if any of the above isn't possible. I don't like to wait 3-4 days to have stuff moderated, and if I have to wait that long, I'll do it myself the way I described above. I ask in a chat for a number between 1-20 after having written out predetermined outcomes and take it from there. I've never been interested in cheating to win, I'm interested in storywhich I advance through objectives. Maybe that's why traditionally my GoT characters have actually been dynamic and fun to watch, they don't just sit on their ass and react to everything else. I'm sorry if the try hards of this forum can't appreciate that.
Quote:
No this forum is not dying because of the shed but because of the current attitude we all have contributed to, you too. That's also self awareness. The Shed also have a real life btw, they can't be online 24/7, we have kids, gf's, friends families and work/school to attend too you know. And a lack of interest can be explained by the fact settings are launched without consultation (i do not recall we were consulted about wanting an american setting) about what we want to play. You know you own personal preference for a setting doesn't necessarily reflect the interest of what the community wants to play.
1. So there was no consultation about the latest WOTR, Sunset, or GoT?
2. RL commitments are real, but that has also become the alibi for just straight up inactivity because you're bored with a game and would rather play CK2. The latest WOTR failed because of this. Half, maybe more,of our leaderhship isn't able to dedicate the time necessary to run this forum. When the same thing happened with me in around 2012 when I was busy with school, I resigned from the Shed and left it to more active people. This is the ugly truth we're not addressing and this is the heart of the problem.
3. I would never move forward with a game unless I reached the number of interested people that I need. Usually 4-6 now. Frankly it doesn't matter if there's not unanimous agreement. We have multiple fora and multiple games can run at once, ironically it seems that the shed disagrees with this and would rather stifle games and funnel everyone into the same thing.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...7/Naamloos.jpg
I rest my case. For the last 18 months I've only been able to play Civ 6 and I've had a lot of free time to help. I'v volunteered to help, LM has denied me the ability to participate in any sort of forum leadership. I do not know the reason for this, though I would be interested in his explanation now.
Quote:
Remember we are trying to cure this toxicity, it would be nice if we can drop attitudes like this and come to a consensus where we can go forward again united. Sorry if i seem to be hostile in this post but all the blame can't be solely laid at the shed.
We don't need consensus, we need a quorum. It's time everyone starts to understand that. As for the shed, we can't have a group claiming all this power and then not hold them accountable for problems. If they had been more diligent we wouldn't be in this mess. I find it hard to sympathize because I've been warning them in private about the discord chat toxicity and other issues for about a year now. Their decision to largely disregard veteran players was their own choice.
I don't think you're being hostile, I think you're speaking frankly. There's nothing wrong with that.