Replacement Needed for ISDG

[Jowy]

Worry not RB! Next game I will handle diplomacy and we'll be the one doing the dogpiling

[Krill]

My better judgement tells me to stop writing anything about this and I have no business speaking about it. But this is the internet, where's the fun in that?

Too true.

I've taken part in part in more than 8 demogames. Leadership roles in over half them. Been there, done that. Closest example to RB is with Gathering Storm...and that team functioned. So what I'm going to say comes from someone that actually has experience with demogames and management experience.

TEAM in the RB demogame certainly didn't function. Do you as original team leader take any responsibility for that? I actually thought you'd said things here to the effect that the main thing you learned from demo games is not to play demo games because they don't suit you.

I actually only agreed to join as a team leader to set up the team and no more. As I said, there is a difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. If I were acting as a dictator, it would be significantly easier to make decisions and tell others what to do. At most, I would need to educate people on what I wanted them to do, and maybe even teach them why. As it was, I tried to get the team set up, and really it was set up as best possible considering the population that contributed to it. Catwalk became the team leader before I left, I think he even took the position before the first worker was finished.

Critical point here is to accept that there is a difference between managing a team, and running a team as a democracy. Namely, that when you manage a team, you accept responsibility for the teams actions, as you are controlling the actions of the individuals. A democracy does not have the same issue, as all of the critical actions are polled and decide by an informed group that understands the options and the likely consequences of said actions. So what were you doing, running a democracy, or a dictatorship?

Other people can correct me but it was more of a representation. Sullla was overwhelmingly endorsed as the turn player early on, Scooter had responsibility for diplo. Kjn was doing C&D. Various people were working on micro plans.

That's not a democracy. You had multiple people contributing to plans and acquiring information, but the final decision about what was happening, about the proposals that were brought to the team were not voted on. That is more akin to a management structure than a democracy.

Look, RB lost. No one cares about that. Personally I still care about the decisions that the team made. I care about why they were made.

I care too but because I'm interested in it as an applied microcosm of tricky people issues that applies to other things. I wasn't much of a part of the team but did lurk it and made comments here and there.

So why does your opinion matter less than anyone else's? It doesn't, if it is a democracy. But let us be real. The game for RB has been over for a year now, yet we have not had this discussion. I want it. Other people want it. Yet there is a fear that if it is started it will be stopped very quickly, for whatever reason. I feel that is a shame, and reflection on the ISDG is one of the most important opportunities that this community has to move forward and improve itself.

I want the people involved in that game to come forward and justify those decisions, and I definitely want you to explain why there were turn players that quit during the game. I want you to explain why Sullla basically had veto decision over choices yet he bears no responsibility for the outcome of the game.

I find your animosity to Sullla entertaining now that Noble and Commodore seem to have mostly made up. I think it's unfair to single him out, because while he was acting as the appointed team general I didn't see much evidence that many others thought the wrong decisions were being made at the time they were. I saw a lot of agreement (and still do) around the idea that we played the "optimal Civ play" and who cares if it lost game because there's nothing we can do when we're ganged up on. (And ignoring the valid reasons why the other teams did so.)

I think if I answer this Sullla will use this as an excuse to lock the thread. If you want to talk about it in chat, I will PM you my gmail account details...or perhaps Sullla might decide that actually talking on RB is OK, rather than going somewhere he isn't a mod is necessary?

And I definitely want you to justify the invasion of Germany.

Someone else will have to step up for that. I wrote (after the fact): "Attacking the Germans, with the benefit of hindsight, was a bad strategic play that gained little and lost everything." And not stopping when we said we would stop was diplomatic suicide with the whole world, and quite the act of hubris, and a terrible overextension when falling behind in key military techs. It should have been apparent at the time that it was a terrible play but I didn't see anyone making that case. The team was kind of caught up in group-think and bravado about it. And yeah, the reasons for that fascinate me too.

And, I'm sure many here would still try to justify the play after the fact as the correct play nonetheless, ignoring that this a game played with people, and that human behaviour has cause and effect too.

TLDR: I don't think I disagree on the key criticism of how the game was played or how decisions were made but I think you're going past that into an unfair personal attack on Sullla.

You are the first person I've spoken to that has said that. Or rather, those that I spoke to have said they quit beforehand because they were not listened to. So there was no one left to make that case that knew it was bad. Which leads me on to question why that is the case.

I looked at this game to gain a basic understanding of the game itself. It is easy to comment on the decisions that were made, and to acknowledge that they were wrong on a basic strategic level. I am not all that interested in that, to be entirely honest. I agree with you that as individuals there are many people who could play a better game than the team put together.

I am interested in the why that decision was made, as there were many people part of team Realms Beyond that could understand that war, the reason for such a war and the criteria that needed to be met to end it. I am interested in knowing why those people did not post, for whatever reason. I am interested in the discussion that lead to the war. I am interested in the discussion that lead to the war being prolonged. I am interested, full stop. But short of being spending a weekend reading that forum, I will not learn about it, and sure as shit no one else will, because no one has sat down and had the discussion regarding what we can learn from that game.

You are right. I do not like Sullla. The feeling is mutual. That is not why any of this has happened. The reason this has happened is because the entire community has decided to not reflect, publicly or privately as a group, on what happened. This here is one such opportunity, so I feel that we should grasp it with both hands whilst it is still available to us.

[2metraninja]

Since you won the ISDG can we drop all this RB is persecuting my beliefs crap and just have fun playing games together?

ISDG is not over yet, nor CFC is anywhere near sure to win it. But in case it happens, you can be sure I am so far from taking all the credit for it. As for playing at RB I did quite a lot of duels and 3 pitbosses already. I find it quite different and interesting and funny place and experience. Educational too.

Glad you're having fun with the games here.

Little disclaimer:

I was just told by a native English speaker that neutral words like "different", "funny", "interesting" and "educational" will actually sound as an insult. They were not meant as such. RB is different from all the civ sites I've been, it is interesting for me, as I would have had not stayed otherwise. Funny is because I see funny and hilarious things being posted and said all the time and also it is funny, because I have the little joy of looking and trying to understand people and their motives. It is educational to me too, as I am learnign things and new way to look at civ.

[pindicator]

Might as well stop holding this in. Krill had some good points about repressing the game rather than trying to learn from it as a community.

I quit twice during the ISDG. The first time it was because I felt like my suggestions and those that didn't line up with an established group think (not naming names because I don't want to focus on the people, rather the problems) the it was at best ignored. It felt like if you weren't established as a ' good player' then you're opinions didn't get much traction either. So after getting ignored I decided it wasn't worth the bother and quit.

[Lord Parkin]

I think there's one question that still needs to be answered: does the Mackoti smurf speak perfect english?

Sure, most of the time.

As mackoti I keep responses terse, then apply a filter to add and remove random letters before posting.

[Gavagai]

I stopped "participating" in the game like two weeks in, but I did eventually read most of the relevant bits. RB generally played a solid game. Some mistakes were made in strategy and diplomacy, especially toward the end, but there wasn't realistically much RB could do against a dogpile by multiple empires of roughly comparable power, one of which was being led by arguably the best MP Civ player in the world. One-sided animosity against RB was evident as early as the recruitment phase of the game, which I can only speculate was due to the desire of certain civ sites to prove themselves against the "elite" RB community.

I will be frank here. I'm quite astonished by the fact that a living person can find this kind of "explanation" satisfactory, whether it is right or wrong.
Also, Krill is making very good points in this thread.

[Brian Shanahan]

I will be frank here. I'm quite astonished by the fact that a living person can find this kind of "explanation" satisfactory, whether it is right or wrong.
Also, Krill is making very good points in this thread.

If it's right by definition it has to be satisfactory. But the reason for the ganging up on us that Bob mentioned was that the two original admins in the pre-game, 2metra and somerswerd, were active participants in the CFC team, and used their position as admins to a) poison the well against RB in some of the most scummy ways I've seen in competition (to give a soccer analogy, it was exactly like Cheaty "Jose" McCheats tactic, when his own cheating doesn't work of accusing the other team of doing the cheating that his team actually did), and b) (as a consequence of a)) do everything in their power to ensure that bad settings got picked over good.

Due to their utter lack of morality and sheer brazenness, I thought at the time (and still do) that RB's best tactic would have been to let the guys to their own poisonous little well and walk away from the game before it started.

@Sullla; this is the polite version.

[Bobchillingworth]

@ Gavagai-


I'm not sure what part of my post you found unsatisfactory? It was a brief paragraph, but if you want me to break it down for you-


It isn't worth writing a detailed analysis of how RB got eliminated because:


A. RB was getting shafted on the diplomatic end before the game even formally began, which can easily be confirmed by anyone who cares to sift through the recruitment thread 2metra posted on RB & the setup / tech thread on Civfanatics. Brian's explanation above is great. Not many lessons you can learn from that besides "don't join games where one or more teams has it out for you before turn 1".

B. RB was eliminated by a coalition of military forces no one could have realistically defeated. Said coalition formed in no small part due to Point A, and I would argue was inevitable, based on what I know.

C. Discussion of RB's play almost inevitably devolves into scapegoating, which is corrosive to the RB community.

Additional Bonus Point D. RB is almost certainly never going to play as a community in a game like that again, so what's the point?

[Krill]

Brian, I don't think ManU can win the Premiership any more. As that's the case, you owe me an avatar for the next six months. I'll forgive you the debt if you just shut the fuck up and start acting in a civil fashion

[2metraninja]

I will be frank here. I'm quite astonished by the fact that a living person can find this kind of "explanation" satisfactory, whether it is right or wrong.
Also, Krill is making very good points in this thread.

If it's right by definition it has to be satisfactory. But the reason for the ganging up on us that Bob mentioned was that the two original admins in the pre-game, 2metra and somerswerd, were active participants in the CFC team, and used their position as admins to a) poison the well against RB in some of the most scummy ways I've seen in competition (to give a soccer analogy, it was exactly like Cheaty "Jose" McCheats tactic, when his own cheating doesn't work of accusing the other team of doing the cheating that his team actually did), and b) (as a consequence of a)) do everything in their power to ensure that bad settings got picked over good.

Due to their utter lack of morality and sheer brazenness, I thought at the time (and still do) that RB's best tactic would have been to let the guys to their own poisonous little well and walk away from the game before it started.

@Sullla; this is the polite version.

-= hint - hint =-
The two most vocal non-appointed "ambassadors" of RB attitude in the pre-game discussions were you and Darelsj, calling people which you dont know "dicks" and "village idiots" for having different opinion. So if there was any poisoning, you should be blaming yourself and feel ashamed of yourself. And when was the last time you actually played some civ to have such a firm and unwavering opinion on which settings are "good"? What about just "different"?