.com.unity Forums - Question about diplomacy

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)

- - Question about diplomacy (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40450)

Re: Question about diplomacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edi (Post 636835)

Every now and then someone who got burned by a broken NAP in some MP game either posts a thread where the intent is to list "known NAP-breakers" or asks the mods about posting such. This is not the first or second or third time it comes up in a discussion.

The reason such threads have been and will be quashed on sight is that they are nothing but useless flamebait. Broken NAPs are an issue within the specific game (as exemplified by llamabeasts post above with the moloch/dragon example) and discussion of specific NAPs and specific games belong in the appropriate threads. Taking those issues out of the game threads and bringing them out to the wider forum in an attempt to either "warn everyone else" or to just get even amounts to a vendetta against the targeted user and is against the forum rules.

If allowed, the only thing they would do is divide the community into mutually hostile groups and once you were seen to fall into one camp or the other, it would not be long before there would be flaming across group lines even in unrelated discussions. I've seen things like that happen on other forums, so it's useless to try to argue with me that it wouldn't happen here. At my most charitable, I'd consider it ignorant bleating.

So while discussion of NAPs and how binding they should be and when is okay on a general level (such as this thread), any attempted listings of NAP-breakers are not. That kind of trouble will be nipped in the bud, so any such lists people may wish to post they can do on their own web pages, which obviously are not subject to the Shrapnel Forum community rules.

"useless flame bait"
"vendetta"
"ignorant bleating"

Edi - its difficult to tell here if your opinion is as a user, or as a moderator. Which is a bit unfair.

However your colorization of the issue *is* against the very shrapnel rules you are quoting. I think its great to explain that these kinds of posts will be nipped.

While I may disagree with the decision - you are just presenting the actual policy. However, calling it 'ignorant bleating' goes over the line.

"Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is whenever someone is clearly, deliberately posting in a manner for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board. Trolling could be directed towards one user or a group of users. Trolling DOES NOT encourage further discussion, it only encourages personal attacks (if left unchecked) and will not be tolerated."

Also "Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated."

Which applies to users and *groups of users*

Also, respectfully, I have reviewed the forum rules, in their entirety, several times. Again, I accept the decision as made, but I see nothing in the rules that says what you says it does,
aka

"posting a list of game actions or events is against the forum rules."

Rather, I believe the moderators have made a decision they believe in the best interests of the board. I support that. I just don't support saying that posting a list of nap breakers is against forum policy, when its not.

Respectfully

Re: Question about diplomacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnq (Post 636823)

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker (Post 636547)

I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.

Judging from the poll results, the "schism" is already there. As I see it, the problem is that some people are convinced that there is a "consensus", and react with outrage when their illusions are shattered.

No one I know believes there is consensus on this issue. No one on the "no break" side has reacted with outrage that people have the ability to break naps.

Quite the contrary - the no break side has been subject to quite a bit of ridicule. "imbecilic, ridiculous, idiotic" - and quite a few more.

I'm not asking the thread be frozen - but I do think if you check back recent threads, that your post is not factually accurate, and I do think more civility is in order on all sides.

Re: Question about diplomacy

Respectfully, I am entirely with Edi. That sentence about "ignorant bleating" may indeed be a bit harsh, but otherwise I think his post is very sensible and reasonable.

Re: Question about diplomacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen (Post 637113)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edi (Post 636835)

Chris. this reply to you is not made in a capacity as a moderator, even though it touches the reasoning of the previous post. As I am an active participant in our discussion, I cannot moderate it without a conflict of interest, so I will not.

The characterization of NAP-brekaer list threads as useless flamebait arises out of the fact that they always devolve into flamewars. The few times they went on for some time before being locked, they became flamewars in short order. Flamewars do not serve the community in any capacity, hence they are useless.

The vendetta part: Taking things out of a game thread and separating them out of the context of the game where they happened can appear to be a vendetta if that action would lead to provoking the target. That has also happened in the past, things taken out of threads to pursue private arguments in public and flaming on all sides. It has even led to some users being banned here. In general, when I use the term vendetta in relation to online forums, it means having a grudge with a person rather than a person's arguments and pursuing that grudge even in threads unrelated to the one where the disagreement first arose. It is not a derogatory term or used in a loaded fashion. I have no idea what you read into that word.

The ignorant bleating part: The wording is harsh, yes. It was perhaps a bit unwise to use that exact phrase. Doesn't change the fact that I have seen situations like the ones it refers to spiraling out of control and dividing communities. Having seen that, there are no arguments that would persuade me otherwise and I would consider the person making them to be speaking out of ignorance. If they were to insist on repeating those arguments, then perhaps the harsher wording would be justified. I'm sorry if you took it as a personal insult, but it was not meant as one. My post was general in nature, not addressed to anyone specifically.

It's part of the forum rules that things disruptive to the community are not to be posted and there is some latitude given to moderators on what topics can be considered such. For the reasons mentioned above, the publication of the kind of lists as have been discussed here are considered that and thus not allowed.

If there is more disagreement about this, please take the issue up with the other moderators or the administrators in private instead of pursuing it here.

Re: Question about diplomacy

There is always two sides. I dont remember too many alleged NAP breakers who agreed that they broke a nap. So such a list would only be a list of people that someone claims has broken a nap. I think that even I, who tends to play stupidly paladin, might end up on such a list eventually.