LordRahl2 Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Right, so it is your opinion that what I said was different from what you said because it has a term you pulled out of thin air to describe it. I assume you'll next give me a well reasoned argument about how those were a well reasoned argument so what I said wasn't as valid? What term did I pull from thin air? Declarative? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aenir Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 In fact, with the list of those in the closed dev group,What list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) What list? There is one in the group that Sheepy pinned. Someone posted it here somewhere. EDIT: Grammer Edited July 12, 2015 by WISD0MTREE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What I am suggesting is a compromise. Keeping the functionality of the closed development section is indeed a necessity, and that does mean it has to be exclusive to people who are willing to put aside their own personal benefit and use reasoned arguments and a sense of fairness to contribute to developing the game. However, *in light of how being in the closed development group may favor them in the game*, I do think it is necessary for transparency. The CDG has been trying to avoid people pushing their agendas into the discussion area by proxy like you suggest. I don't think that is exactly being transparent by allowing that. Caecus,in the spirit of transparency,maybe you should discuss in detail your time spent in the CDG. We've just discussed a few protocols that should improve the functioning of the CDG, including feedback from the public discussion area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Caecus,in the spirit of transparency,maybe you should discuss in detail your time spent in the CDG. Elpinchazo, I dropped that topic a while back because it pissed off a lot of people. And it still probably does, which is why I avoided you on the forums up until now. But it looks like you want to bring this back, so let's do that. I joined the CDG by recommendation of Ashland about two weeks ago. By then, the spy discussion board was to the 6th page. When I first posted on the thread, I made it clear that my intention and objective is to focus only on spies, because I had a degree of expertise in the area and could comment on nothing else. I initially posted about the mechanics of the spy system and by modifying either factor would result in a different way spies would be played out. I then addressed concerns such as the "top 10 nations in spies suppressing the rest of the game," as being ridiculous and economically unfeasible. My overall opinion was in favor of changing to the 35% + 4 kill cap run by Ashland, and made several posts in support of it. On the second day, after reading some of Adama's beautifully written posts detailing the concerns of the other side, I posted about a compromise which included a soft cap due to a substantial increase in the upkeep of spies. Elpinchazo, you then posted immediately after that it was a "short-sighted band aid" WITHOUT detailing why. As being part of the CDG, I would have expected you to make a logical, concise argument on why this would be a problem. In the meantime, I critiqued my own post, saying that this soft cap would be harder on smaller nations, and thus would require keeping the spy ranges in place. You later posted my critique as the reason why it was a "short-sighted bandaid," and then accused me of pushing my own agenda. That's low. I also started a new thread on buffing the CIA project by recommending the decrease of operational costs. You wrongly read my thread and interpreted it as decreasing upkeep costs, and accused me of pushing my own agenda. If I was pushing my own agenda, I wouldn't be offering compromises that addressed an issue of the opposition. I wouldn't be critiquing my own recommendations. My remaining time in the CDG is telling Elpinchazo that he has yet to contribute any constructive arguments and lacked anything intelligent to say in the CDG. Whether that remained true after I left the CDG is to be said. I left after making my suggestion because I didn't want to have to deal with Elpinchazo in a pointless, unintelligent argument that has nothing to do with the development of the game or the suggestion that I made. All you do is fling poo Elpinchazo. I will not bother answering you from now on if you just fling poo. Elpinchazo, if anyone could be remotely accused of pushing their own agenda, what about the removal of the spy limit pushed by Phiney? The spy limit on Phiney obviously disadvantages him because he can only do ops on less than 5% of the game population. The removal of the spy limit greatly benefits him. And you. And your alliance. I didn't bring this up until now because Sheepy wanted to remove the spy range as well, but there is opposition by PB in the CDG (at least before I left) and opposition by countless others in the thread. Edited July 12, 2015 by Caecus 4 It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 We've just discussed a few protocols that should improve the functioning of the CDG, including feedback from the public discussion area. I think the biggest issue in the group that is currently outraged by the CDG is a lack of trust. Again, there was no official public announcement that detailed such a group existed, and coupled with the rather radical changes of the spy system, has resulted in a loss of trust. The protocols that should improve the functionality of the CDG should be viewable. Likewise, I do think that anyone outside of the CDG should not be commenting on the protocols, but I do think that if it were viewable, it would be a good first step in rebuilding trust. 5 It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Elpinchazo, I dropped that topic a while back because it pissed off a lot of people. And it still probably does, which is why I avoided you on the forums up until now. But it looks like you want to bring this back, so let's do that. I joined the CDG by recommendation of Ashland about two weeks ago. By then, the spy discussion board was to the 6th page. When I first posted on the thread, I made it clear that my intention and objective is to focus only on spies, because I had a degree of expertise in the area and could comment on nothing else. I initially posted about the mechanics of the spy system and by modifying either factor would result in a different way spies would be played out. I then addressed concerns such as the "top 10 nations in spies suppressing the rest of the game," as being ridiculous and economically unfeasible. My overall opinion was in favor of changing to the 35% + 4 kill cap run by Ashland, and made several posts in support of it. On the second day, after reading some of Adama's beautifully written posts detailing the concerns of the other side, I posted about a compromise which included a soft cap due to a substantial increase in the upkeep of spies. Elpinchazo, you then posted immediately after that it was a "short-sighted band aid" WITHOUT detailing why. As being part of the CDG, I would have expected you to make a logical, concise argument on why this would be a problem. In the meantime, I critiqued my own post, saying that this soft cap would be harder on smaller nations, and thus would require keeping the spy ranges in place. You later posted my critique as the reason why it was a "short-sighted bandaid," and then accused me of pushing my own agenda. That's low. I also started a new thread on buffing the CIA project by recommending the decrease of operational costs. You wrongly read my thread and interpreted it as decreasing upkeep costs, and accused me of pushing my own agenda. If I was pushing my own agenda, I wouldn't be offering compromises that addressed an issue of the opposition. I wouldn't be critiquing my own recommendations. My remaining time in the CDG is telling Elpinchazo that he has yet to contribute any constructive arguments and lacked anything intelligent to say in the CDG. Whether that remained true after I left the CDG is to be said. I left after making my suggestion because I didn't want to have to deal with Elpinchazo in a pointless, unintelligent argument that has nothing to do with the development of the game or the suggestion that I made. All you do is fling poo Elpinchazo. I will not bother answering you from now on if you just fling poo. Elpinchazo, if anyone could be remotely accused of pushing their own agenda, what about the removal of the spy limit pushed by Phiney? The spy limit on Phiney obviously disadvantages him because he can only do ops on less than 5% of the game population. The removal of the spy limit greatly benefits him. And you. And your alliance. I didn't bring this up until now because Sheepy wanted to remove the spy range as well, but there is opposition by PB in the CDG (at least before I left) and opposition by countless others in the thread. The only suggestions you were involved with were ones that directly benefited you. you were fighting to get spy changes made so that you/BoC could deal with apeman and the other thing you fought for was to lower the cost of spy upkeep via the CIA project. Which is funny since you have both 250 spies and the CIA project. It wasn't about things that benefited the game but just you directly. 'short-sighted band-aide' comment was because your solution was to triple the spy upkeep costs which as I stated only 'kicked the can down the road' and penalized smaller nations. Maybe you just weren't paying attention aside from pushing your own agenda but I've disagreed with Phiney on a few things in the CDG. I believe I even once state that he needed to stop seeing things via TEst perspective and look at it from the perspective of the entire game. You fling a bit of poo yourself,sir. If I haven't made any logical contributions Sheepy is free to remove me at any time. Since he put me there himself,I'm willing to be he disagrees with your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Elpinchazo, if anyone could be remotely accused of pushing their own agenda, what about the removal of the spy limit pushed by Phiney? The spy limit on Phiney obviously disadvantages him because he can only do ops on less than 5% of the game population. The removal of the spy limit greatly benefits him. And you. And your alliance. I didn't bring this up until now because Sheepy wanted to remove the spy range as well, but there is opposition by PB in the CDG (at least before I left) and opposition by countless others in the thread. removing the spy range would actually hurt Phiney as much as anyone and TEst in particular since test has 15 which is significantly less than most larger alliances would put them at a disadvantage once the score range was removed. So for example Say UPN wanted to spy out TEst's ships,they could easily have funneled money to memebers and conduct they 3 vs 1 spy attacks without ever worrying about range. That change both could benefit AAs like TEst or destroy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 I think the biggest issue in the group that is currently outraged by the CDG is a lack of trust. Again, there was no official public announcement that detailed such a group existed, and coupled with the rather radical changes of the spy system, has resulted in a loss of trust. The protocols that should improve the functionality of the CDG should be viewable. Likewise, I do think that anyone outside of the CDG should not be commenting on the protocols, but I do think that if it were viewable, it would be a good first step in rebuilding trust. protocols are being discussed and I think that once fleshed out should be presented to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) The only suggestions you were involved with were ones that directly benefited you. you were fighting to get spy changes made so that you/BoC could deal with apeman and the other thing you fought for was to lower the cost of spy upkeep via the CIA project. Which is funny since you have both 250 spies and the CIA project. It wasn't about things that benefited the game but just you directly. Copy and paste my proposal for the CIA project word for word. There is a difference between operational costs and upkeep costs. It's a basic difference that anyone who has any spy background should know. And yeah, I was fighting for spy changes, because the spy system was dead at that point. And that was because of a radical update, which I have read the posts concerning that update in the time I was in the CDG, and it was not really debated with the exception of PB commenting that "spies are now as hard to kill as tanks". I was in the CDG commenting on the dead system long before Apeman attacked the BoC. Go look up the first post I made, and then go look up Apeman's declaration. To help save you time: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7199-o-canada-dow/ removing the spy range would actually hurt Phiney as much as anyone and TEst in particular since test has 15 which is significantly less than most larger alliances would put them at a disadvantage once the score range was removed. So for example Say UPN wanted to spy out TEst's ships,they could easily have funneled money to memebers and conduct they 3 vs 1 spy attacks without ever worrying about range. That change both could benefit AAs like TEst or destroy them. I'll let that go. That was accusatory and rude of me. I apologize Phiney. Maybe you just weren't paying attention aside from pushing your own agenda but I've disagreed with Phiney on a few things in the CDG. I believe I even once state that he needed to stop seeing things via TEst perspective and look at it from the perspective of the entire game. No, I just didn't bother to read all of your posts, which I imagine you returned the favor in the CIA project thread I proposed. Edited July 12, 2015 by Caecus 2 It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 I try and comment on most issues discussed in the cdg, and often make and agree with suggestions that are directly detrimental to myself. The point is balance and improving the game whilst thinking about your own nation as little as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Its interesting that the only person I can remember violating that trust, and having to be told by sheepy to not make suggestions that benefited them and their alliance was you, Caecus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Its interesting that the only person I can remember violating that trust, and having to be told by sheepy to not make suggestions that benefited them and their alliance was you, Caecus. Pull the exact post where Sheepy said specifically me, Caecus, to not make suggestions that benefited me, Caecus, and my alliance, the Brotherhood of the Clouds. I don't have access to the CDG anymore, so I can't say that I have evidence that what you are saying is total bull !@#$. Edited July 12, 2015 by Caecus 1 It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Its interesting that the only person I can remember violating that trust, and having to be told by sheepy to not make suggestions that benefited them and their alliance was you, Caecus. I would love to see this. Seems rather unprofessional for a admin to tell a player who to avoid. 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody K Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I like how this group, apparently made to avoid the drama and unproductivity of the public forums, is leaking a great amount of drama and unproductivity into the public forums. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I like how this group, apparently made to avoid the drama and unproductivity of the public forums, is leaking a great amount of drama and unproductivity into the public forums. I wouldn't really say the group is the ones who brought about the drama, more so the ones not in group who believe in some wild illuminati like conspiracy theory they've conjured up out of what I believe to be either personal jealousy or in character political reasons which are both things we tend to keep out of that group for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I wouldn't really say the group is the ones who brought about the drama, more so the ones not in group who believe in some wild illuminati like conspiracy theory they've conjured up out of what I believe to be either personal jealousy or in character political reasons which are both things we tend to keep out of that group for a reason. Like I stated earlier, why should I feel confident that you're telling the truth here? I don't know you. I don't see you posting in Game Suggestions often. In fact, the most I've seen from you, personally, is posting random new alliance threads and being part of IRC logs of dicking around with people. So why should I think you have what is best for the gaming community here when you're representing the ideas in the closed dev group? I don't have a issue with the intention of the CGD. I have a huge issue with how the players are picked to be part of it and I question a lot of players who were selected to be part of it. 1 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I wouldn't really say the group is the ones who brought about the drama, more so the ones not in group who believe in some wild illuminati like conspiracy theory they've conjured up out of what I believe to be either personal jealousy or in character political reasons which are both things we tend to keep out of that group for a reason. See the illuminati do not exist. There actually is a secret group of players conducting secret discussions to advise Sheepy. These players voted unanimously to maintain their secrecy btw. They also self select additions to their secret group and apparently have some unpublished code of conduct that restricts who was initially considered and randomly kicked out. To be classified as what we consider a conspiracy theory there needs to be at least some question about if these things are true or not. There is no question because we have been told about it. It is true. It would have been a conspiracy a month ago should someone have suggested it. Of course they would have been proven right... Honestly you can have your gentlemens group - a simple solution to shut this whole thing up would be to make the board read only if you were not in the BGE membergroup. By the way, I never noticed spamming of flaming in the Game Discussion boards. Sheepy, Why do you think there would be if you just had these discussions there? In other words what event led you to build a secret group rather than open your ideas up to the community in the open? Here is a public post from you. http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6942-jurassic-park-national-project-and-velociraptors/?hl=velociraptors I observed, generally speaking, respectful replies. Some were silly or irrelevant but easy to skip over. Maybe I missed what the problem was that you were trying to correct with a closed secret advisory group. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I wouldn't really say the group is the ones who brought about the drama, more so the ones not in group who believe in some wild illuminati like conspiracy theory they've conjured up out of what I believe to be either personal jealousy or in character political reasons which are both things we tend to keep out of that group for a reason. Get over yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Get over yourself. Point in case. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Point in case. Thank you. Act as unpleasant as you usually do, claim jealousy when someone takes issue. Oh and that was targeted just at you not the dev group so try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Act as unpleasant as you usually do, claim jealousy when someone takes issue. Oh and that was targeted just at you not the dev group so try again. Exactly my point. People like you wouldnt be able to leave personal feelings out of the group. Just like your attempts at pointing out that Rose had more members than anyone in the dev group. You have, for some unknown reason, a beef with Rose and now myself and you use that to target things. Want to know the two people I nominated to join? MrHat and Partisan. Why? MrHat was responsible for handling a lot of numbers and programs for Vanguard at the time and was able to see things I didn't at the time. We never agree on everything and he would've brought a different perspective to the group. Partisan is a player who has been around as long as I have, has an alliance that js strictly ran on nothing BUT numbers and actually takes time to think out his responses to make sure they're contributing to the topic at hand. We were barely on speaking terms when I nominated him, but I thought his insight would bring contributions to the game, so I threw his name in the hat. You are a perfect example of what doesn't belong on the a dev team anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Exactly my point. People like you wouldnt be able to leave personal feelings out of the group. Just like your attempts at pointing out that Rose had more members than anyone in the dev group. You have, for some unknown reason, a beef with Rose and now myself and you use that to target things. Want to know the two people I nominated to join? MrHat and Partisan. Why? MrHat was responsible for handling a lot of numbers and programs for Vanguard at the time and was able to see things I didn't at the time. We never agree on everything and he would've brought a different perspective to the group. Partisan is a player who has been around as long as I have, has an alliance that js strictly ran on nothing BUT numbers and actually takes time to think out his responses to make sure they're contributing to the topic at hand. We were barely on speaking terms when I nominated him, but I thought his insight would bring contributions to the game, so I threw his name in the hat. You are a perfect example of what doesn't belong on the a dev team anywhere. I checked what alliance everyone was in which just happened to have Rose at the top. I made no big deal out of it. As for "beef"... it is "unknown" is it? Addressed the Rose thing far too many times to no avail so I'll address you. Are you so unaware that I take issue with your attitude? However that I could stomach until of course you made something dreadful as an excuse to later hit people, and then when you were the first one it activated on you hid behind some friends so you wouldn't be attacked even though the whole point of the thing was that pixels apparently didn't matter. Then even though you had already worked out that I didn't much like it you joke about it and generally acted unpleasant instead of apologizing. How pray tell am I suppose to love you long time then? Well I certainly wouldn't question their inclusion. Because I've been wanting to get in on it have I? While you never told me directly as such I knew of it through you, and I also knew of MrHat. Had I at that time wanted I could have asked yet didn't so much for that. We all have our own angles we push and just like the whole dev group isn't like you, not everyone on the other "side" is like me. My angle was always of being against the terrible attitude shown by some of the dev group (you included naturally) which some in the dev group didn't participate in, later apologized/reversed on, decided to ignore entirely, or decided to keep going with the same attitude. Yet because you have to band everyone as being the same I'm apparently jealous I didn't know about a group that I did know about, and that I was not part of it when I could of asked at any point prior and there wouldn't have been any possible reason to deny me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diocletian Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The only real complaint I personally have is the totality and inevitably the "dev group" will get their way, regardless of what the rest of Orbis says. At the end of the day Sheepy makes the call, and whichever way he chooses not everybody will be satisfied. That's tough, if someone doesn't like it that much they'll probably just !@#$ about it a bit and/or leave the game. It happens. You simply can't please everyone. 1 "The happiness of the people, and the peace of the empire, and the glory of the reign are linked with the fortune of the Army." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The only real complaint I personally have is the totality and inevitably the "dev group" will get their way. You need to back that statement up with something even remotely resembling a fact. The dev group is not a hive mind as you're implying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts