ISDG 2012 flame war

[fluffyflyingpig]

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...

Don't worry then, you're not!

Though good job implicitly insulting the entire forum.

[Bobchillingworth]

I think we can safely conclude that 2metra is, has been, and will continue to pointlessly antagonize the RB community for whatever perverse, imbecilic reason compels him. Having determined that to be the case, there is no longer reason to engage him on any level, save as a competitor should you be in the same game.


In other words, Don't Feed The Troll. Stick him in your ignore list and forget he exists.

[Sommerswerd]

He trolled the rules discussion in order to paint RB in a bad light.

This is true. I just looked up the Wikipedia definition of "troll". I hear this term all the time but I had never taken the time to go look up what it meant. I was not suprised mind you... It meant what I assumed it did... but I wanted to at least look it up before admiting/denying. That being said, I think I have owned up to this already.... but I would like to show respect to my former teammate BriSha by further clarifying specifically how right he is. Part of my reasoning for fighting so hard over the CSM setting was to antagonize RB towards everyone, because I was confident that in terms of pure in-game ability, RB was superior to everyone, and that if the game was going to be won by CFC, it would be through human relationships/psychology not by out "civing" RB.

This is highlighted by the fact that the one setting/tactic (CSM) that most (if not all) the animosity and fighting was over was never actually used in the game, and I anticipated it probably would not be (as evidenced in my pre-game discussions on the CFC forum). So yes, part of the intent (at least my intent) of the argument was to get RB all riled up over a trivial issue in order to marginalize them... in other words, "trolling."

In any case, I have observed that here on RB forum, (like spamming on CDZ forum) "trolling" is a little more accepted/respected conduct than on other sites/forums. Is my observation incorrect? I guess my point is... I trolled, I admit it, but so what? I realize now that I have trolled quite often in the past. But this does not seem like a forum where trolling is a hanging offense, or in-and-of-itself something that makes a member of the community some kind of undesireable. In fact, in many ways I enjoy your style over here, and I think that putting the past aside, I would have fit in over here very nicely. Many of you guys have a conversational style/approach that is more similar to mine than I initially realized.

Maybe the point is that trolling, in this context, was metagaming and some folks resent metagaming, especially from a person percieved to be a kind of defacto mod. If that is the point, then I think it is a valid concern to raise, even if I don't agree with it. The fact is I was not a Mod, regardless of perception, and Metagaming is/was unavoidable in this context, so it would have been naive for me to deny it. My view, obviously.

[Sommerswerd]

Sorry for the back-to-back post

push for the best rules like sommerwerd did.

He didn't push for the best rules in the discussion forum.

This depends on whether by "best" you mean:
1. Objectively best
2. Best according to your (RB's?) preference
3. Best according to my (CFC's?) preference

If it is #1, then I have to say that I reject that as a concept and I assert that none of us are "objective" in this context. When we try to claim objectivity, we just set ourselves up to be offended when our opponents inevitably decry our bias. There are very few (if any) "best" rules/settings. There are only my preferences and your preferences. Which brings me to...

#2, which is what I was "pushing" against and #3 which is what I was "pushing for". As I have said, it would have been naieve not to do so. So I guess if BriSha meant #1 then I would say that's a perception issue. If he (BriSha) meant #2, then I agree, but can you blame me? If he meant #3, then I just disagree (with BriSha not MJW).

I don't see anything wrong with the organisers, you and Sommer, participating in the ISDG, this is not a professional sport and everyone deserves to have some fun.

This

Yeah its very common that the people who organise these types of games have an interest in playing in them.

This as well...

I would not have gone through all the work/struggle/animosity of getting the game started if I was not going to be able to play myself. I think that is common for game organizers/planners/hosts. There are some who are selfless enough to go through all that thankless work just so others can play... Caledorn, plako, Sullla and OzzyKP are a few names that spring to mind... but those are all better men than I.

I pretty much plan to retire from BTS civ after PB18, too.

I have also "retired" from Civ IV... so this brings me to the point (at least from my perspective) of continuing this discussion. I have been mulling the idea of hosting a Civ V pitboss (sometime this year), and I intend to invite players from this site. So I have to be willing to face the music and show my face over here if I am going to have any chance of finding any players. I mention this so you have some context for what's-in-it-for-him other than trolling.

[MJW (ya that one)]

CROSS POST

I should point out that, the reason why CSM wasn't used was because 2metra made a very strange deal where CivPlayers took off the AP win off the table and CFC took CSM off the table. 2metra later regretted it but was unwilling to backstab. So he wanted to use it and I think that counts. The threat of CSM, and other things, might have made Sullla want to win the game as quickly as possible and overextend RB too.

There are reasons why you where the defacto mod after the official one proved worthless. So setting up the rules became a game itself with factions. CivPlayers and Apolyton were headed by players who aren't willing to argue aggressively. The german's and spainish's language barrier stopped them from doing anything too. I don't know much about UCiv but you had them under your thumb so they couldn't have hurt. WPC also likes you better than RB. RB might have been able to do something if Sullla made them openly press and spam the forums instead of using LordParkin as a mouthpiece which wastes too much time and pressure to really do anything. So there's was basically nothing to counterbalance CFC activity so you guys got what you wanted. Because you were the leader of CFC of that time you basically got to set the rules. RB had the good options of dropping or lowing their standards. Sullla tried to take a third option of playing at disadvantage and winning anyway (in his defense this worked the first time and that game's rules was much more unfavorable to RB) but RB didn't even reach that point and the threat of CSM might have caused that.

I agree with you that this is unavoidable under standard conditions as I said before.

Reaction to cross post:
1. Conflicts of interest are not avoidable here but the issue what you did.
2. Brian Shanahan meant #3. I thought you opening admitted from Fintourist's post here?
3. The first Civ5 ISDG crashed and burned within a month so I'm pretty sure that your wasting your time here. I'm just warning you not to do it and not attacking you.

[Ellimist]

Sommerswerd, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I am having a very hard time understanding something. I've read enough of your threads now to conclude that you are pretty skilled at predicting other people and relating to or influencing them.

So yes, part of the intent (at least my intent) of the argument was to get RB all riled up over a trivial issue in order to marginalize them

So how can you possibly still view CS missions as "trivial"? They obviously are not trivial to us. We know them to be utterly gamebreaking and unfair/unfun. We have no interest in gaining an unfair advantage over others, or of letting them gain one over us.

You assert that there is no such thing as "objectively good" rules. You think it's normal to argue in favor of settings you don't care about in order to antagonize other players. We believe in fair play and a level playing field. I reject both of your points and invite you to prove me wrong. RB has over a hundred pitboss and pbem games available for you to study on this forum. Show me where any of us have done what you did.

[Sommerswerd]

I should point out that, the reason why CSM wasn't used was because 2metra made a very strange deal where CivPlayers took off the AP win off the table and CFC took CSM off the table. 2metra later regretted it but was unwilling to backstab. So he wanted to use it and I think that counts. The threat of CSM, and other things, might have made Sullla want to win the game as quickly as possible and overextend RB too.

Excellent and valid point. However, I would like to add that I also anticipated, and intended for exactly that to happen, which I also discussed in the CFC Forums at lengths at the beginning of the game. Using what we knew was an idle threat of CSM as leverage against the overblown fears of the opposition was a key part of our underlying strategy, that began with picking Musa as leader. I imagined that it would ultimately be RB rather than CP that we were using the 'CSM as a treaty concession' strategy on but it was always part of the plan.

So I don't think this invalidates your point but it does enrich the context some. CSM was never really our goal. From the beginning it was always intended as a powerful ruse. Powerful in the sense that we were betting that our opponents were sufficiently terrified of it and sufficiently unsure about how to protect themselves that they would be forced/willing to give us concessions to protect themselves rather than take measures to protect themselves. I think 2metra's "regret" expressed in the threads was more about 1) making a public affirmation of his honourable principles (the man keeps his agreements), 2) to pre-emptively put-down any calls to start using a CSM based strategy and 3)a way of grudgingly acknowledging that we may have been outmanuvered on the CSM/AP deal.

Unfortunately, at least some of that discussion took place between 2metra and I over PM so it is lost to history, but some of the strategy was discussed openly, even before the game began. Ultimately, CP was defeated (which is why their player quit)without CSM as their path to AP victory was cut off by the CSM deal. So again, CSM was not ever used or intended to be used.

Reaction to cross post:
1. Conflicts of interest are not avoidable here but the issue what you did.
2. Brian Shanahan meant #3. I thought you opening admitted from Fintourist's post here?
3. The first Civ5 ISDG crashed and burned within a month so I'm pretty sure that your wasting your time here. I'm just warning you not to do it and not attacking you.

1. I don't understand what you mean here. Are you just saying you agree with me?
2. So BriSha was saying that I didnt care about CFC's preference, and was just pure trolling? If so, then that is what I disagree with. What did Fintourist say? I have admitted a lot of things and I always try to acknowledge truth, I just dont know what quote you are referencing to.
3. No ISDG, I am talking about a much smaller scale, somewhat more "normal" Pitboss game, as in 1 player per Civ. But I still appreciate the heads up. No offense taken

[Sommerswerd]

I have talked alot already, I know this issue is/has been sensitive... I want to try not offend any more than I already have in the past... So I really want to avoid re-arguing the merits of CSM as it has been beat to death already, nobody's mind is changing at this point and Civ IV is obsolete so it's almost moot. But I do want to respect Ellimist with an answer to his direct questions.

So how can you possibly still view CS missions as "trivial"? They obviously are not trivial to us.

By "trivial" I mean that since I knew that CSM was probably not going to be used, there was little at stake for allowing it in the game. But I also anticipated that RB would go crazy over it (mostly because I had seen LP go crazy over it in the past). So I knew that it was not trivial to you (RB) indeed, I counted on it. I also counted on it being trivial to everyone else, therefore isolating you for making such a big deal about something "trivial." I admit, again, that this is metagaming.

RB has over a hundred pitboss and pbem games available for you to study on this forum. Show me where any of us have done what you did.

You ask me to "show you" examples on the RB site. That puts me in a difficult position...catch 22 from my perspective... I am not going to comb the RB forum for "evidence" to post as this would REALLY be trolling and offensive for anyone I quoted. But still...You want me to post examples of what? Trolling? Intentional antagonizing? I just don't know what to say to that.

You think it's normal to argue in favor of settings you don't care about in order to antagonize other players.

I was not arguing about something I didn't care about. The issue was very important to me, but more from a metagaming, human psychology perspective rather than an in-game tactics one, because I knew what the strategy was ...isolate the top dog by antagonizing them and put them off balance by including an unfamiliar/uncomfortable mechanic to throw them off their game ... Both of which are metagaming to some extent. I hope that makes sense.

We know them to be utterly gamebreaking and unfair/unfun. We have no interest in gaining an unfair advantage over others, or of letting them gain one over us.

As I said, the merits of CSM have been beat to death no one is changing their mind. My experience with CSM is that it is feared because it is not understood/used and it was easier to ban it than to learn it, perpetuating the problem.

But there is no unfair advantage if the tactic is available to all. The game was not broken by it. This game proved that to my satisfaction. I know that we aren't going to agree on this and I am willing to accept that.

You assert that there is no such thing as "objectively good" rules ... We believe in fair play and a level playing field. I reject both of your points and invite you to prove me wrong.

If you truly believe you are without bias (conscious or subconscious) in favor of your own preferences then I really can't say much about that other than I disagree. Moreover, I don't think there is any way for me to "prove you wrong" especially to your satisfaction. But I have trouble accepting the premise that "fair play", and "level playing field" means I must "play by RB's preferred rules" 2metra has already argued this point ad-nauseum so I wont re-argue any more than that.

On the issue of fairness, I will repeat that what makes the rules "fair" and the playing field "level" is that we all play by the SAME rules not that we all play by YOUR rules. Subjective or even objective ideas about whether a rule is "good" are not as relevant. As long as a tactic is permitted for everyone to use the play is fair, the field is level.

Again, I am willing to tell the truth here and share my thought process so that the community can comment and evaluate. I don't think I am wrong to say that that spirit is part of what RB forum is about.

[GermanJoey]

[MJW (ya that one)]

I'm not here to argue but I have some thoughts summer:

1. A common saying in chess is "the threat is stronger than the execution" so planning to use something as threat is good enough. Also this is a one-trick pony only being possible because of the few games played because people know that you are bluffing. Here's an example of an airplane crashing because of a threat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9UzgLisPHw

2. CSM is overpowered and that's why its hated here. You cannot stop it cost-effectively and just switching back is not worth the price unless you have a golden age or are spiritual. So your stuck with the civic for the rest of the game. CFC has a good enough point that it's an officially part of the game rules.

3. There's not enough players to avoid people being the organize and a player at the same time sometimes. That's a conflict of interest which is no-one's fault. You of course can be blamed for your actions.

4. See post #263 in this thread to see what everyone's talking about.