Another Open Letter

[Vega]

No one is criticizing departments, at least I don't read that.
We are... (I'm not going to write it again, damn, that word is difficult) saying that the rules are not in a clear place with an easy access, but a bit all spread...

[Optimus Christ]

If you don't like it here, noone is stopping you from leaving.
The last thing we need is people who are criticizing departments.

*Goes to get popcorn and coffee*

[Marian]

Everyone ignore him, he as an agenda.

He wants more English players to gtfo.

[Friar Briar]

If you don't like it here, noone is stopping you from leaving.
The last thing we need is people who are criticizing departments.

This statement is inflammatory and adds little to the on-going discussion. It is also disrespectful to the players who actively contribute to the conversation with their time, efforts, and energy and who wish to make Cantr a better game and community.

[Rmak]

Racism in cantr or just forum bravado ?

[BeepBeep]

I'd like to thank GAB for opening the door for discussion, along with all parties involved in the quest for an even better Cantr.

[iavatus]

Ty Beep. That sometimes gets forgotten. We're doing this, arguing over this, because we want a better game. Not tear it down, or mould it into some twisted fantasy for ourselves, but just a flat out better game.

Accountability, would not hurt that. Accountability, would only hurt those who deem themselves above everyone else by dint of a colourful title on their name.

[EchoMan]

And a highly placed ex-staffer, still wasn't aware of one rule, that *is* public and visible.

So, those invisible, nebulous ones. How are they measured fairly, when someone runs afoul?

An ex-staffer who didn't work in the area of forum management, was not aware of a recent forum recommendation change... the world is coming to an end for sure...

[*Wiro]

Guess not then.

[altoids]

Agreed, the forum rules and recommendations are very separate from the in-game rules and the CR.

Still, they could be mentioned on a hypothetical rules page in their own paragraph. No need for people to look for a specific rules thread in every subforum they want to post in.

[Optimus Christ]

So question: Will there be no halfway point being met? Or am I missing something?

[EchoMan]

Halfway point of what?


Slightly off topic, but a good read and background to the Capital Rule. This is written by Jos in 2003:

http://wiki.cantr.net/index.php/Game_Background

[computaertist]

Slightly off topic, but a good read and background to the Capital Rule. This is written by Jos in 2003:

http://wiki.cantr.net/index.php/Game_Background

Please, please someone tell me that I'm very, very far from being the only one that sees the original intent of the capitol rule as described there is absolutely nothing whatsoever like the enforced capitol rule we have now. Three people playing hundreds of characters obviously had characters of one player in the same family, the same organization, working toward the same goals very, very often, and that wasn't a problem. No, not all of their characters, obviously; one player would have had characters fiercely against each other in competing markets and ideologies and governments and so-ons as well. This is a situation that has become explicitly against the new capitol rule, the capitol rule which I hate. The original capitol rule, though, that sounds so thoroughly awesome that I definitely would pay monthly to play that game. (I think I can afford to now, unlike the last time I posted such sentiment.) The capitol rule has clearly fallen so, so very far from where it started.

[EchoMan]

It's one thing enforcing a rule in a room with three friends, it's a whole other thing in a distributed game with hundreds of players all over the world. Of course the CR had to be adapted accordingly.

[computaertist]

Of course Forgive me if I can't help thinking it could somehow have been done infinitely better.

My opinion is that the rule should have been players only have to be able to explain what each character did from the perspective of the character. If they could do that believably, they could do anything. If they could not offer an explanation of the character's motivation without revealing ideas being passed telepathically between characters or acquired from outside the character's experiences (i.e., impossibly), or if the offered explanation struck a large majority of players as truly unbelievable (from the same language group probably) (like two thirds or three fourths), then the events would need to somehow be corrected. After repeat such offences in a certain period (with the possibility of scrubbing the slate with exceptionally good contribution to the game) a player would need to be banned for demonstrating a lack of ability/willingness to play believably solely from the characters' points of view.

No, I don't think this would have to ruin the anonymity, as explanations could be posted anonymously simply as "the player of <<character name>>", no further name or username attached. And with the anonymity in tact, I don't see the point of further secrecy. Secrecy was never a part of the original Cantr, and I don't see it as adding anything useful to the game.