https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1729
That list is incorrect. Flav dropped out a few pages ago:Nephthys wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:12 pmFinalised player list
Players
1. Durga - CONFIRMED
2. foodcoats - CONFIRMED
3. EspressoPatronum - CONFIRMED
4. Vaporwave - CONFIRMED
5. Percy Williams - CONFIRMED
6. damo - CONFIRMED
7. Vecna - CONFIRMED
8. rdrivera2005 - CONFIRMED
9. xorxes - CONFIRMED
10. bozo - CONFIRMED
11. FlaviusAetius - CONFIRMED
12. Flash2015 - CONFIRMED
13. bo_sox48 - CONFIRMED
14. Dargorygel - CONFIRMED
15. Foxcastle - CONFIRMED
16. EMC - CONFIRMED
17. Mike213 - CONFIRMED
18. Fluminator - CONFIRMED
19. brainbomb CONFIRMED
20. Tom Bomb - CONFIRMED
Substitutes:
1. MoscowFleet
2. ItsHosuke
FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:09 pmYou know whats ironic about this, WORCEJ AND JAMIE's authority from last game is being questioned HERE.rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:44 amI am probably not playing in any game that you GM anyway, but if you ask him to comply for a reasonable request (like Moscow say in tbe thread he won't lurk) and they don't agree I believe it's in your right to not allow them. It's not because the last game, but about his failure to accept GM authority.worcej wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:44 amSpecifically @rdr and @darg - I will not allow Durga or MF in any future game of mine because of poor player experiences that I've witnessed others experience and even express to me.
You guys okay with that? You'll still play right? I can do what I want and you'll respect that right?
My gut tells me you won't be okay with that and the only reason you're okay with it now is because it's Chippe.
The last game is over and yet Npethys and TrPrado have decided now since their GM's they get to override all other GM's. Ridiculous. I am out of this game as well unless Chippie is allowed in.
I will address point one. That statement is troublesome because he didn't agree because he accepts it's an undesirable behavior that hurt the game but just because it won't benefit him anymore.worcej wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:21 pmI understood your perspective for quite some time. The issues I have raised, and gotten some responses, and some of my comments on your position are the following:Nephthys wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:31 pmJust gonna put up my personal thoughts. This is more just so that players, and now non-players can have an understanding of how and why I/we went about everything how we did.
The timeline
- Last game Chippe engaged in a tactic which upset many people as affecting the quality of the game. This tactic had been discussed with the GMs of that game and was deemed acceptable.
- Moving forward to this game there was, well, uncertainty about what would happen
- In discussion with Trp we looked at 3 options
1. Excluding Chippe
2. Allowing Chippe
3. Conditionally including Chippe
We opted for 3.
- We approached Chippe asking that he publicly state he would not engage in such tactics as in this game they would be considered against the rules. I personally think this is the most important point in this discussion. Our approach to Chippe was because he had engaged in a tactic we would not allow. We decided not to allow this as we saw the negative impact it had last game and wanted to involve as many people as possible, especially considering the optimistic 28 player set-up.
- Chippe returned saying he would not do it again as it would give him no advantage, he refused to publicly state it. We've already discussed the concerns this created and I think them very important.
This then left us in the position that Chippe had not complied with our request and we had concerns with his lack of appreciation for the enjoyment of others participating.
When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.
I think what is getting so blown out of proportion here is that this is Chippe, who solely has caused a game to be abandoned in the past. This meant that many people were cautious of him, regardless of him having served the punishment for the offence. This is my understanding having not been around for the original incident and participating in the last game. It may be wrong. We did not engage in this action pathway because it was Chippe but because a tactic that compromised the enjoyment of other players was used and we, and many other players were concerned it would happen again.
Did we do this perfectly? No. I will be the first to admit this. I think it would have been better to delay the publishing of the sign-up thread until we had a community wide discussion of how to deal with this in a position were no-one "had power". I also think that approaching Chippe stating we would rule such behaviours to be unacceptable and then posting to inform all players of this could have been a less confrontational approach and therefore could not be (falsely) interpreted as an attempt to publicly humiliate a player.
Regardless, what has been done has been done and we will be progressing with this game.You can choose to ignore me and move on, that's well within your right, but it is also within my right to stand up for principals of inclusion and good gaming culture.
- Chippe stated he would not do this tactic and indicated he would comply. Why are you hung up on the fact that he added it wouldn't being advantage to him?
- Why did you need him to publicly state he would not do it when you addressed it behind the scenes?
- Totality of the player base is not being represented or benefiting from your decision. If that was your intent, inclusion would be the only choice. I may be nitpicking, but it's important because really you're choosing the majority at the cost of a minority.
- Maybe I am struggling to understand the 'net positive player shift' you're seeing, but I am one of 5 players who dropped out in protest to this action. This game would have 6 more players in it if this wouldn't have happened. There have also been numerous opinions from people other than the protestors indicating this is a poor choice to intentionally exclude in a public game.
- You're downplaying the significance of this by saying we're blowing this our of proportion because it's Chippe. To be crystal clear, I would have the same reaction to this if any other player was excluded from a game when they are not serving a rules punishment. Chaqa has said it best, but this whole situation can only be seen as ostracizing and not promoting a good gaming culture.
I was more of trying to point out from a logical point of view that there was no incentive for me to do it again in an effort to convince him that I wasn't going to do it again (since that was a more convincing argument). Carry on with interpreting things that were left "unspoken" in my messages though.rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:11 amI will address point one. That statement is troublesome because he didn't agree because he accepts it's an undesirable behavior that hurt the game but just because it won't benefit him anymore.worcej wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:21 pmI understood your perspective for quite some time. The issues I have raised, and gotten some responses, and some of my comments on your position are the following:Nephthys wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:31 pmJust gonna put up my personal thoughts. This is more just so that players, and now non-players can have an understanding of how and why I/we went about everything how we did.
The timeline
- Last game Chippe engaged in a tactic which upset many people as affecting the quality of the game. This tactic had been discussed with the GMs of that game and was deemed acceptable.
- Moving forward to this game there was, well, uncertainty about what would happen
- In discussion with Trp we looked at 3 options
1. Excluding Chippe
2. Allowing Chippe
3. Conditionally including Chippe
We opted for 3.
- We approached Chippe asking that he publicly state he would not engage in such tactics as in this game they would be considered against the rules. I personally think this is the most important point in this discussion. Our approach to Chippe was because he had engaged in a tactic we would not allow. We decided not to allow this as we saw the negative impact it had last game and wanted to involve as many people as possible, especially considering the optimistic 28 player set-up.
- Chippe returned saying he would not do it again as it would give him no advantage, he refused to publicly state it. We've already discussed the concerns this created and I think them very important.
This then left us in the position that Chippe had not complied with our request and we had concerns with his lack of appreciation for the enjoyment of others participating.
When we were deciding what to do we actively considered what would best represent the totality of the player base. Considering the net positive player shift since the announcement I think we are still in that position. Should this shift then I will be the first to apologize and will happily do it publicly and engage with all actions necessary to make reparations.
I think what is getting so blown out of proportion here is that this is Chippe, who solely has caused a game to be abandoned in the past. This meant that many people were cautious of him, regardless of him having served the punishment for the offence. This is my understanding having not been around for the original incident and participating in the last game. It may be wrong. We did not engage in this action pathway because it was Chippe but because a tactic that compromised the enjoyment of other players was used and we, and many other players were concerned it would happen again.
Did we do this perfectly? No. I will be the first to admit this. I think it would have been better to delay the publishing of the sign-up thread until we had a community wide discussion of how to deal with this in a position were no-one "had power". I also think that approaching Chippe stating we would rule such behaviours to be unacceptable and then posting to inform all players of this could have been a less confrontational approach and therefore could not be (falsely) interpreted as an attempt to publicly humiliate a player.
Regardless, what has been done has been done and we will be progressing with this game.You can choose to ignore me and move on, that's well within your right, but it is also within my right to stand up for principals of inclusion and good gaming culture.
- Chippe stated he would not do this tactic and indicated he would comply. Why are you hung up on the fact that he added it wouldn't being advantage to him?
- Why did you need him to publicly state he would not do it when you addressed it behind the scenes?
- Totality of the player base is not being represented or benefiting from your decision. If that was your intent, inclusion would be the only choice. I may be nitpicking, but it's important because really you're choosing the majority at the cost of a minority.
- Maybe I am struggling to understand the 'net positive player shift' you're seeing, but I am one of 5 players who dropped out in protest to this action. This game would have 6 more players in it if this wouldn't have happened. There have also been numerous opinions from people other than the protestors indicating this is a poor choice to intentionally exclude in a public game.
- You're downplaying the significance of this by saying we're blowing this our of proportion because it's Chippe. To be crystal clear, I would have the same reaction to this if any other player was excluded from a game when they are not serving a rules punishment. Chaqa has said it best, but this whole situation can only be seen as ostracizing and not promoting a good gaming culture.
worcej wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:06 pmI would suggest waiting until the 16th only because weekend starts blow...dargorygel wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:47 pmIf Foxie's playing, I'll play.
Put me in.
##CALL GM (why do I call Gm in the sign up sheet? It's not like they won't notice...) Are you considering flash's request for delay? Or is that out of the question?
Breaking up with your right hand and than starting to date your left hand doesn't qualify as getting yourself a girlfriend...
That actually makes me so happy to hear! I look forward to playing with you again. (Although if you're scum, I'm nailing your butt against the wall.)
Are you still on FoL?Fluminator wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:31 amThat actually makes me so happy to hear! I look forward to playing with you again. (Although if you're scum, I'm nailing your butt against the wall.)