Replacement Needed for ISDG

[Krill]

@ 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?

Do not comment on the play, for there is little to learn in that area that has not been learnt before the game even began. Instead try to understand why the play occurred. That is focused instead on the people in RB, rather than external forces, and that is something that as a community and as individuals we can improve upon.

[Jowy]

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?

Well I hope we could at least field a "B-team" :P

[WilliamLP]

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".

This is the attitude I talked about in an earlier post in this thread, that there's nothing RB could have done differently to get a chance to win because everything was lined up against us.

I believe that if this same game were played with smurfs or complete strangers, RB's in-game plays and diplo moves made the dogpile inevitable, with or without the reputation.

Also, a lot was bidirectional. I don't think there was much of a good faith attempt to have a positive sum relationship with CFC after meeting them in game, for instance.

I also think Krill makes a lot of good points. Even, that when a lot of people want to actively shut down discussion, which they could just ignore instead, it could be something worth talking about.

(And maybe even Sullla can see the irony of using mod powers to threaten to silence us if he doesn't like what's being said. I say this as someone who loves Sullla.)

[Gavagai]

@Bob. Your explanation amounts to A) It wasn't our fault, B) We are better not to discuss it further than point A. Still see nothing wrong with this approach? I don't really want to explain why it is wrong because explaining such trivialities is simply boring.

[Bobchillingworth]

@ Krill- That's a fair argument, but I think in practice that's going to boil down to criticisms of people involved in the game which cause bad blood for little reason. 99% of the MP games we play are internal to the community, almost all of which have no more than three people to a team, making large-group management and delegations skills largely irrelevant. If there are errors in any particular demo member's style / judgements, then those will impact the quality of their play and standing in PB / PBEM games, but would be discourteous at best to publicly discuss. Sure, RB is sometimes an insular site, even arrogant, but I think we're very welcoming to new members, which is what really matters for keeping the community alive & vibrant. Given that ISDGs happen maybe once every three years, I wouldn't particularly stress how well equipped we are to function as a single, massive team. I'm sure we can get our act together in time to compete in 2017 or whatever, assuming there are even still enough civ sites around at that point.


@ Jowy- I think you might be waiting a while :P Given all the drama surrounding the current Demogame, and the way that most teams rapidly burned through players, I doubt there will be much interest in organizing another any time soon.

[Bobchillingworth]

@Bob. Your explanation amounts to A) It wasn't our fault, B) We are better not to discuss it further than point A. Still see nothing wrong with this approach? I don't really want to explain why it is wrong because explaining such trivialities is simply boring.

What is it you expect RB to get out of this? Lynch the team leaders over a game RB was eliminated from over half a year ago, in order to prepare the community for another game that's never going to happen? Publicly excoriate Sulla & Scooter as part of some internet bloodletting ritual? Hang our heads in collective shame because we weren't humble enough in our dealings with representatives from other civ sites who constantly provoked us? The thrill of cheap internet drama down your spine?


What is the point, Gavagai? As rich as it is to see you complain about other people refusing to accept responsibility for their actions, how would yet another bout of internal finger-pointing and recriminations help anyone?

[antisocialmunky]

I think RB is highly skilled individually or in small groups but it is really difficult to put together a working team form people who are only individually good. There was a lot of stepping on each others toes and other pretty stupid conflicts in retrospect that gutted the team at the end.

It would be interesting to see another big ISDG where RB fielded multiple small teams so as to remove the inefficiencies. Maybe that would also remove the mental circle jerk of 'everyone out to get RB' that poisoned that forum. -_-'

[Krill]

@ Krill- That's a fair argument, but I think in practice that's going to boil down to criticisms of people involved in the game which cause bad blood for little reason. 99% of the MP games we play are internal to the community, almost all of which have no more than three people to a team, making large-group management and delegations skills largely irrelevant. If there are errors in any particular demo member's style / judgements, then those will impact the quality of their play and standing in PB / PBEM games, but would be discourteous at best to publicly discuss. Sure, RB is sometimes an insular site, even arrogant, but I think we're very welcoming to new members, which is what really matters for keeping the community alive & vibrant. Given that ISDGs happen maybe once every three years, I wouldn't particularly stress how well equipped we are to function as a single, massive team. I'm sure we can get our act together in time to compete in 2017 or whatever, assuming there are even still enough civ sites around at that point.

@Bob. Your explanation amounts to A) It wasn't our fault, B) We are better not to discuss it further than point A. Still see nothing wrong with this approach? I don't really want to explain why it is wrong because explaining such trivialities is simply boring.

What is it you expect RB to get out of this? Lynch the team leaders over a game RB was eliminated from over half a year ago, in order to prepare the community for another game that's never going to happen? Publicly excoriate Sulla & Scooter as part of some internet blood-letting ritual? Hang our heads in collective shame because we weren't humble enough in our dealings with representatives from other civ sites who constantly provoked us? The thrill of cheap internet drama down your spine?


What is the point, Gavagai? As rich as it is to see you complain about other people refusing to accept responsibility for their actions, how would yet another bout of internal finger-pointing and recriminations help anyone?

I suspect that Gavagai and myself "want" the same thing. And no, it's not to see blood on the streets or bans in the forum.

You seem to think that there will never be another demogame. Really, I don't draw any distinction between a demogame with 100 people or a pitboss game played with 1 other person. The whole issue is about how to interact with another party. Sure, you could make fun of the issue and talk about how people here are so socially inept that they can't interact with another human being, but that would be hyperbole. There have been instances of small teams in pitboss games breaking down because various parties could not function together, same as in the demogame. Everyone has the opportunity to learn from this though, because in the future there may be teams in pitboss games that have not worked together before.

If your next question is what can we learn, it's fairly straight forward that the lessons to learn are about the social aspects of how to play together. About how to to make decisions together that fit a strategy, about how to rotate decision making duties, about how, ultimately, not to be a micromanaging jerk. I know from experience I can be at times. There are no fundamental differences between when and why to get group opinions in large or small groups, only the how, and even that is worth discussing.

All that said, there are certain issues with your post that should be addressed.

Is RB an arrogant site? Sure there are individuals that can and are arrogant, myself included, but I'd disagree that the site itself has been arrogant except during the demogame. That is the only time the community as a whole worked together, that is the only time the community as a whole can reasonably be held accountable for it's actions. Except for that episode I'd disagree with the basis for that whole point, but afterwards...well, I for one do not feel entirely comfortable about how people that I want to call my friends have acted.

Acted how previously? Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. I want to know how people felt during that game, what made them stick around, what made them leave. How they felt and what made them feel that way in their opinion. If it made anyone feel any better it isn't exactly difficult to do this in a private manner...but I would question why they would feel that they can't talk publicly about it, as a community. Especially if the problem is how the community functions. Because as Pindicator just said, the issue for some seems to be that the community isn't functioning. And if it is not functioning, if people do not feel welcome to join this community, then we do have a problem.

And if it means that we have to have an argument that means some posters on this site do not like what is said then frankly I don't care what they feel. Because this is not what one or two current posters think, it is about ensuring this community stays healthy and inclusive, and you know what, those are two things this demogame has done absolutely nothing to help. If a couple of people have to have their cheerios pissed in because of their actions in the past, then this is a reasonable consequence of those actions.

[Brian Shanahan]

shut the fuck up and start acting in a civil fashion

Krill, ever hear of the pot calling the kettle black. Because you calling me uncivil is really hypocritcal.

[Brian Shanahan]

-= 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 now you resort to outright lies, I never once posted about anybody else in public fora either here or over at CFC, yes I most definitely vented in the team forum, but guess what, that's private and I was perfectly entitled to vent there if I wanted to.

I thought you couldn't be more of a shitbag, but you proved me wrong.