Krill Wrote:Treating members of a community differently because they are different (ie new) produces a clique mentality; when you then assign newcomers fewer rights, such as banning them from community games for because they belong to that specific group, that's bigotry. If anything, I've always argued that new posters should be treated with respect, dignity, and allowed to integrate with the community: you're saying that the obstinate belief that this is the right thing to do is bigotry. It isn't: it's advocacy.
Also, I had no idea who that was in the .gif, nor what it portrayed: Basketball is not widely reported nor watched in the UK, so it lacked any meaning whatsoever to myself and probably most Europeans. Thankfully the URL explained it though. At least in the new image it's written in, even if it's wrong.
TheHumanHydra Wrote:Could I humbly request that this dialogue be continued in another thread? [SPOILERS]
Boldly Going Nowhere Wrote:Preview edit: ignore the spoiler unless you want more arguments. No more about this from me.
Krill Wrote:Treating members of a community differently because they are different (ie new) produces a clique mentality; when you then assign newcomers fewer rights, such as banning them from community games for because they belong to that specific group, that's bigotry. If anything, I've always argued that new posters should be treated with respect, dignity, and allowed to integrate with the community: you're saying that the obstinate belief that this is the right thing to do is bigotry. It isn't: it's advocacy.
Also, I had no idea who that was in the .gif, nor what it portrayed: Basketball is not widely reported nor watched in the UK, so it lacked any meaning whatsoever to myself and probably most Europeans. Thankfully the URL explained it though. At least in the new image it's written in, even if it's wrong.
I'm not looking to get into a back and forth on this, as the issue is well and truly dead (as in, the outcome is decided and not going to change). That said, calling members on the RB team (a rather large slice of our site) bigoted, which itself is a very negatively-connotative word, is the very definition of bigotry itself. You self-selected yourself right out of that "clique" and I would say your lack of interest in the viewpoint of the deciding majority is rather intolerant. A milder adjective, one not connoting hate/intolerance in a different vein perhaps would be a better choice.
I think that, given that the CFC Demogame is a highly competitive game between sites, that allowing any person to come in off the street to sign up and join our game is begging for abuse. Prudent is a better word for that decision than bigoted.
Last word for me (I promise): I agree in principle that newcomers should be welcomed with open arms, with very few exceptions. This is the singular case that I can think of where it would be ok to exclude new members, for the simple reason that so many of our site's participants are putting so much effort/esteem/time/whatever into that game. To have all of that sabotaged because an opponent could pose as a new member to our forum would be a hugely unbalancing out of game advantage that we could never hope to counter. That would be terribly unjust to our team/members, and some caution against such abuse is rightly warranted. This is prudent caution. Would you decry a nation-state policing its borders and being selective of who is allowed to enter, for the purpose of maintaining the safety, property, and security of its citizens? Not all who enter mean you well. That is extreme for an entertainment site, of course, but the analogy applies. Elsewhere on the site, newcomers are free to come and go as they wish, as rightly should be allowed. We can let the newcomer enjoy our wonderful content, we just shouldn't let the new guy off the street into our vulnerable stuff.
YossarianLives Wrote:I appreciate krill advocating for the newcomers and for pointing me towards team CFC (imho that is the team that works better for me personally, anyways). I definitely understand and respect the RB decision to limit team approvals, the reasoning makes complete sense. I think that was the general feeling amongst all the new members who didn't make the team. I agree with q that the post he made wasn't too spoilerish, but it did get my mind wondering what was happening 50 turns ago. I barely post here but read lots of threads, so just wanted to give a friendly reminder that I'm here.
Krill Wrote:responded via PM. If anyone wants to read it I'll PM it to you as well.
CFCJesterFool Wrote:
Krill Wrote:responded via PM. If anyone wants to read it I'll PM it to you as well.
Yes I do. Find the points being made interesting. Although I've been a member of CFC forums much longer, I swear I'm not a spy.
Krill Wrote:Sent.
Merovech Wrote:As would I.
Oxyphenbutazone Wrote:Yeah, I would too
TheHumanHydra Wrote:You guys might as well make a thread for it with this much interest. Thank you very much for the discretion you've shown in this thread.
Qgqqqqq Wrote:Id also appreciate your reasoning.
zakalwe Wrote:
TheHumanHydra Wrote:You guys might as well make a thread for it with this much interest.
I don't know. I feel like this is a very sensitive subject, and the utmost care must be taken so that nobody is offended. To prevent such disruptive escalation, maybe we should discuss the matter in a password-protected forum, where only the most established and mature members can have access?
Seriously. Enough with the self-censorship already. Just make a new thread and get it out in the open.
fluffyflyingpig Wrote:
zakalwe Wrote:
TheHumanHydra Wrote:You guys might as well make a thread for it with this much interest.
I don't know. I feel like this is a very sensitive subject, and the utmost care must be taken so that nobody is offended. To prevent such disruptive escalation, maybe we should discuss the matter in a password-protected forum, where only the most established and mature members can have access?
Seriously. Enough with the self-censorship already. Just make a new thread and get it out in the open.
I disagree. An offsite blog is the appropriate venue for this discussion. There and only there, with maybe a forum post letting us know to read the blog for updates.
MindyMcCready Wrote:$0.02,....I appreciate Master Krill's stance on the issue.
Fintourist Wrote:Case example:
I created my profile to have a chance of lurking the Intersite Game
I was not accepted into the group
I wrote PM's to sunrise and LP trying to convince them for letting me into the group
But it did not help
I kept lurking other games, joined the demo game and started commenting occasionally here and there
I applied later again and have followed the team since T40 or something
Aaand.. Despite the initial "damn, let me in"-feeling, I think the policy was completely correct. I appreciate Krill's stance on this, but if a game is designed to be a competitive match between sites and maybe even hundreds of participants, then private forums are the right solution.
In hindsight the freatest pity is that because of this debate our team lost Krill's advice. We could have certainly used Yossarian Lives too
And personally the biggest problem is that after creating the account I'm spending way too much on these forums..
Always War
Torusland Inland Seas
Scout + Settler Start
Seven to roll random/civ combinations; Seven/Lurkers to balance combinations
Snake Draft to select; Last in turn order selects first
Turn order to be determined according to time zone
Bans: War Elephants, Nukes, Spies, Corps
No Events/Huts/Barbs
Ban Blockades? Yes
Difficulty? Prince
Speed? Quick
Ballista Elephants allowed for Khmer? Yes
What should be revealed in starting BFC? C
a) Edit terrain so that all food resources can be made visible.
b) Manually reveal tiles in fog of war.
c) It's ok, just reveal as many as possible.
d) Unfog whole BFC
![[Image: kobe%20-%20still%20mad.gif]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59892754/kobe%20-%20still%20mad.gif)
![[Image: dawnof5150_inside_back.jpg]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/171749865/PBEM%2051/dawnof5150_inside_back.jpg)
