ISDG 2012 flame war

[Sommerswerd]

UPDATE: I was able to get a hold of one of the CFC Admins who was kind enough to open the forum, so any here who are interested might have some entertaining reading over the holidays.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=466

Merry Xmas to all, and to all a good night...

[spacetyrantxenu]

Thanks Sommer.

[Fintourist]

I have read some of the discussions in the CFC forum, I'm not interested in another flame war, but this caught my eye reg settings discussion. It's something that I consider of relevance if there ever will be another ISDG organized. The below quote is one of reasons that Sommer gave why CFC should not change their opinion on something EP-related that was being argued.

1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage

CSM banned is a "house rule" at RB. That is the standard way that they play their games. And they are good players. They are coming to "Our House" and trying to get us to play by their house rules. This is because they are experts at playing by their house rules. It is the way they always play.

We would not be wise to let a guy come to our house to play cards and then when he says "dueces and one-eyed-Jacks are wild! That's my house rules" we say "Oh OK." That is not smart. Instead we should tell him "No! Over here we play straight-up! No wilds!" Now he will whine about how his way is "better, it adds more flavor to the game, it adds more skill and calculation with all the wildcards... he has played so many games like this and trust him its so much better... Our way is so simplistic it will just turn into everyone doing one thing, trying to get the high cards..." etc, etc, you get the point. But we would be fools to play his way, because its his way. He knows how best to play that way and he will take all our money if we just play his way.

I remember somebody saying in our forum something like "I agree 100% with Lord Parkin on this CSM matter. My thoughts are the same as his!"

I almost fell out of my seat reading that. Lord Parkin is highly intelligent, articulate, knowledgable and skilled at Civ 4. One thing he is not is objective. Lord Parkin is highly partisan and highly opinionated. He is for his team and nobody else, as he should be. I am the same. I am just as partisan and as biased as Lord Parkin. But I am on your team. He is on his team. The arguments that LP makes have one thing in mind, which is securing the best result for his team. He is very persuasive, but always remember that he wants team RB to win, not you. I want you to win, not team RB or anyone else. Don't let Lord Parkin (or anyone) persuade you to play by RB's house rules. They are not "better" they are just RB's house rules. They are only "better" for RB. That is why they argue so passionately about it.

If it ever comes down to another ISDG it should be avoided that settings discussion is already seen as the battlefield where teams try to score advantages instead of just trying to agree on the most functioning and fair settings.

In the post that I was quoting (post 91 in CFC's settings discussion) there were 6 reasons listed why CFC should not change their vote. 4 of those reasons were related to how other teams see CFC, 1 was about RB, and one of them was about how CFC should function as a team. My point is that if the settings discussion is seen mainly as a diplo issue and the actual impacts of the settings are just an extra: There was never much chance for constructive discussion between teams.

Disclaimer: No idea to what extent team RB thought similarly, I did not have access to our forums at that time and haven't bothered reading now. So I'm not saying that blame is on CFC. I'm just saying that this tactical attitude probably destroyed the settings discussion back then and should not be repeated if possible.

[Dantski]

I have read some of the discussions in the CFC forum, I'm not interested in another flame war, but this caught my eye reg settings discussion. It's something that I consider of relevance if there ever will be another ISDG organized. The below quote is one of reasons that Sommer gave why CFC should not change their opinion on something EP-related that was being argued.

1. Playing with all the settings that Team RB prefers give Team RB an advantage

CSM banned is a "house rule" at RB. That is the standard way that they play their games. And they are good players. They are coming to "Our House" and trying to get us to play by their house rules. This is because they are experts at playing by their house rules. It is the way they always play.

We would not be wise to let a guy come to our house to play cards and then when he says "dueces and one-eyed-Jacks are wild! That's my house rules" we say "Oh OK." That is not smart. Instead we should tell him "No! Over here we play straight-up! No wilds!" Now he will whine about how his way is "better, it adds more flavor to the game, it adds more skill and calculation with all the wildcards... he has played so many games like this and trust him its so much better... Our way is so simplistic it will just turn into everyone doing one thing, trying to get the high cards..." etc, etc, you get the point. But we would be fools to play his way, because its his way. He knows how best to play that way and he will take all our money if we just play his way.

I remember somebody saying in our forum something like "I agree 100% with Lord Parkin on this CSM matter. My thoughts are the same as his!"

I almost fell out of my seat reading that. Lord Parkin is highly intelligent, articulate, knowledgable and skilled at Civ 4. One thing he is not is objective. Lord Parkin is highly partisan and highly opinionated. He is for his team and nobody else, as he should be. I am the same. I am just as partisan and as biased as Lord Parkin. But I am on your team. He is on his team. The arguments that LP makes have one thing in mind, which is securing the best result for his team. He is very persuasive, but always remember that he wants team RB to win, not you. I want you to win, not team RB or anyone else. Don't let Lord Parkin (or anyone) persuade you to play by RB's house rules. They are not "better" they are just RB's house rules. They are only "better" for RB. That is why they argue so passionately about it.

If it ever comes down to another ISDG it should be avoided that settings discussion is already seen as the battlefield where teams try to score advantages instead of just trying to agree on the most functioning and fair settings.

In the post that I was quoting (post 91 in CFC's settings discussion) there were 6 reasons listed why CFC should not change their vote. 4 of those reasons were related to how other teams see CFC, 1 was about RB, and one of them was about how CFC should function as a team. My point is that if the settings discussion is seen mainly as a diplo issue and the actual impacts of the settings are just an extra: There was never much chance for constructive discussion between teams.

Disclaimer: No idea to what extent team RB thought similarly, I did not have access to our forums at that time and haven't bothered reading now. So I'm not saying that blame is on CFC. I'm just saying that this tactical attitude probably destroyed the settings discussion back then and should not be repeated if possible.

Its usually going to be a problem if the people responsible for setting the game up are also all on the same team. Its natural that they will want it to be setup in the way they prefer. I can't speak for RB as a whole but the general vibe seemed to be "Look what Ruff did to sooooo in PBEM1, we don't want that kind of thing to play a part in this game because its a seriously unfun mechanic" and our games don't allow that anymore.

Regardless I don't think it was ever an issue in the game itself.

[Ellimist]

Well it's also our fault for putting up with that nonsense. We ought to have dropped out as soon as it became apparent that CFC was opposing settings simply because we supported them.

Trying to "game" the setup decisions to the degree that CFC did created a terrible foundation to build the rest of the game on, and was very poor sportsmanship as well.

[antisocialmunky]

How is that different from getting settings banned? The one group with more experience with the given settings still benefits. There isn't really a neutral ground. The best solution is to just play a best of series like they do with American Baseball (two leagues have slightly different rules) with both settings.

[SevenSpirits]

How is that different from getting settings banned? The one group with more experience with the given settings still benefits. There isn't really a neutral ground. The best solution is to just play a best of series like they do with American Baseball (two leagues have slightly different rules) with both settings.

What differs (potentially - you didn't give a lot of detail in your comparison) is the motivation for doing it.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I don't think this problem is avoidable after the first game. There's always going to be a lot of animosity after the first game because losing hurts. So whenever there's a disagreement about how the rules should work people become suspicious about your true motivations. Now for games here there's no private threads until the game starts so you can dispel suspicions. But not in demogames were forums are private and the people who are talking are mouthpieces of them. So the default options are just to ignore the problem like RB did or push for the best rules like sommerwerd did. There's other ideas like not making forums private until after the game starts but those are the default options.

[Brian Shanahan]

push for the best rules like sommerwerd did.

He didn't push for the best rules in the discussion forum. He trolled the rules discussion in order to paint RB in a bad light. No matter what RB argued for or proposed he would immediately shout it down on the basis that it favoured us too much, no matter what the proposed rule was about.

He never had any intention of setting the game up with the best rules, he was simply cheating the system to give cfc the best chance.

I disagree slightly with ellimist regarding when we should have quit. We should have quit when the supposedly neutral (and the only way the game was going to be properly run was if they were truly neutral) admins and game originators 2metra and sommerswerd revealed that in fact they weren't neutral but members of team CFC. In profession sports terms that would be the equivalent of the referee in the last world cup being Willy Caballero (Argentina's third choice goalkeeper).

[2metraninja]

I think Brian Shanagan's analogy is bad and he should feel bad. He should feel bad at first time for even wasting his time in a forum for a game he is not good or even remotely interested in or knowing what he is speaking of. If we are going to make analogy with football and FIFA WC, it must have been Franz Beckenbauer and Miroslav Klose (you know, a legendary player from the past, spirit of the team, etc and the current top player of the winning team Third goalkeeper who never saw a minute of game for a team who lost the tournament is more suitable for portraying Shenagan himself I think )

Seriously, guys, if I was a respected member of the RB Civ4 community, who really does care of how people perceive the whole community, which is actually full of talented and worthy civvers and personalities as a whole, I would had found a way to advise guys such like Brian and Elimist who barely even played the game somewhere somehow, to keep quiet and not repeat one and the same non-senses when people discuss concepts about the game or a particular game which people played and contributed to. Same goes for MJW. He never even logged in to the game, nor he played a game of civ in the last 10 years? What is wrong with you guys? Why dont you get a hobby which you actually like and are not feeling like worthless crap at? Seriously, this is disgusting and worrisome.