Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been pinned, so it's probably important 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
20 
Report this post
If that's in relation to needing to grab an updated/different Java: Towns is written for a certain environment, it is theoretically possible to support all environments but that's not really a practical goal. Most games would list the JRE required in their required specs; but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll ship the game copy with that software.
In the case of Towns, there's no way it would have been practical to ship the game with the JRE version it was written for. Xavi made the decision, rather, to explain the requirement and how users could access that software themselves. It's not as convenient as shipping with the required software, but arguably it's "better" for the end user/player - if gives them more control. That does go directly back to one of the values inherent in Ben and Xavi's design choice: Towns is designed to give players as much control over the game as possible.
Although if it's not listed in the requirements (I haven't checked lately) then it certainly should be.
ok thx, and yeah its required because it dosent allow me to play without it
Please Yeti, just stop saying things like this. In reference to a game where most of your activities are performed through indirect control, things like this scream propaganda. It's fine that you're trying to be positive and helpful but lets please stick just to that and leave out the questionable, clearly pure opinion based fluff.
It just doesn't seem like professional conduct for a moderator. It's one thing to see that kind of talk from some random person on the forums but it's a bit different when that person has authority over the conduct of others. I feel you need to work on maintaining a professional distance.
I do believe we're on different pages here. When I said "it gives players more control", I wasn't talking about in-game, I was talking about control over the game itself.
Most games still follow a "here's the story, here's what you can do in the game, now go do it" design mentality. Towns, like Majesty and Dwarf Fortress and many of its other inspirations, is about giving the player a different choice: "here's the world, figure out how it works and then do what you want to do in it". Moreover, Towns takes it one further to say "in fact, you can have control over the meta-game as well - change the game environment to suit your style better if that's what you want to do".
As someone who appreciates that kind of meta-game freedom, it galls to no end me that a lot of players are blaming the Devs design choices for the fact that they, as players, haven't even begun to explore the different ways they can use Towns. That's where my passion shows through more than it probably should; but then I've always been the first to say that "professional distance" was never an option for me. The fact of that matter is, I even without maintaing a cold formality I can still see things from the other perspectives that they're presented in; and cold formality doesn't seem helpful to me. I'd much prefer it if we could all get along casually and have a laugh and a good time together... from my previous experiences that's what most people have wanted, but if that's not what some people want, then this is the place to speak up about it. Again, I can only respond to the information I'm given (well, I can infer a lot, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume my inferences are always accurate so I try to avoid leaning on them unless I have no other information to go on).
Interesting discussions are not arguments - at least, not by the defenition I've been taught. In my understanding, debates (probably what you call arguments) are good but arguments are unproductive - they're what's left when people run out of evidence and fall back to proselytising and opinion-pushing. To put that another way: arguments are what you get when there's no respect between the two people debating. And by that defenition, arguments are anathema to what we're trying to do here; respect is paramount to a healthy community.
The second point you make ties directly into my answer to your first point: these discussions about Xavi's morality are the height of disrepect, not only to Xavi but to the community as a whole. Many, many, MANY people on both "sides" (again, I don't believe that there are sides, but a wide spectrum of shades of opinion) have called for those discussions to stop because they're unproductive. I made a clarification to Steam's "no derailing threads" rule in order to make it easier to deal with those threads.
And finally, I'll be the first to admit that I advocate for Towns in a positive light, and that I look towards a better fouture for the game. But "propaganda" is a long way off what I try to do. Propaganda denies a voice to anyone else; and my whole purpose for taking on this role was to let everyone have their voices heard. In fact, I'd throw the ball into the other side of the court on that claim - the "propaganda" lies in claims about immoral developers, lax production standards, bad game etc. Those claims don't leave room for discussion, and that's propaganda in its most basic form. My points are ALWAYS aimed at opening up dialogue; even when i directly refute someone's information I do it in a way that allows the discussion to take a new path; or leaves the debate open for more evidence.
My personal opinion is that a lot of the "offence" taken by the "anti towns side" is nothing but overblown baloney. One thing I've learned the hard way is that taking offence on someone elses' behalf is entirely counterproductive - not only will that not accomplish anything, it will often alienate the "flagbearers" from the people they set out to support. Of course, it's easy to turn that back on my own actions; however there's a key difference: I'm not doing this for Xavi, or even for the community as a whole. I am, primarily, trying to clean up some of these problems because I want them cleaned up - I'm sick of seeing them get in the way fo the community activities I want to take part in. It's a happy coincidence that cleaning up the issues is helpful to the community; but my motivation ultimately resides in wanting to be part of this community, and the fact that while these issues continue I'm missing out on some of the stuff I've "paid" for with my previous efforts.
That's where I'm coming from, and what gets me so riled up. People are all too happy to fling accusations of trolling, double standards, abuse and whatever else in my direction; but there's little consistency. Consistency is the main thing I'm going for here - I originally LIKED Towns, and the community, because it was consistent. Ben and Xavi put forward an idea, and for a long time they stuck to that idea quite well. From what I observed, the inconsistencies started creeping in when the Devs started deviating from their idea to accomodate the really loud community members - at that point, the loud cries were often "get the update out ASAP"; this was back in the days before heroes were a part of the game and new content was the main focus. To my mind, that content-rush was the first crack in the foundations of the game - not a major problem while the Devs were able to keep an eye on it, but once the pressure piled on, that's where the bigger problems started.
In a roundabout way (that I'm somewhat notorious for - sorry it's so long), that's why I want to define the community values. Before the real work of fixing the game's foundations can begin, everything else has to be raised up or cleared away in order to take the pressure off that foundation, and let the Devs work with it. The problems can be cleared away, but the community can't - so what we have to do is "raise it up" so that it can support itself, then the Devs have one less thing to worry about while they fix up the damage to the game and get back to the idea that we all orginally were interested in.
For example, the part about "Do not make arguments about what "should have been", because that's a moot point and only muddies the waters for people who are interested in the game as it stands" could be used in that manner. Features that are missing from the game IS a legitimate point of discussion, even if these features have been added recently but should have been in place a long time ago, like terraforming. Mods to the game have had terraforming for a while now (even if it was a workaround which simulated it; I never got into modding the game seriously so am not sure exactly what it entailed code-wise), so it most likely wasn't something that was extremely difficult to implement. Limiting discussions only to exactly what is currently in the game will hinder the positive on-topic discussions that you're trying to protect.
I understand and agree with some of the points you made in that thread though, so please don't interpret this post as an attack or anything. Rule 4 is cool, and I understand why moderation action should be taken when people call Xavi/the devs names and allege that he is unethical and so on. Those types of statements are pure conjecture since all we have to go by is the history of the game and the few comments that he and others have publically made. Now, I certainly understand why people come to those conclusions, especially since Xavi has never really done anything to curb those conclusions. But those statements violate the Steam rule about flaming or insulting other members, thus action should be taken.
I just think that the additions thread isn't necessary, since the Steam rules are pretty cut and dry. When users violate those rules, by all means explain why to them as you take action. If they don't learn, then things will procede as they will, and the poster will suffer the consequences. Steam rules don't need to be clarified in public, and they certainly don't need to be added to. The additional rules, and your interpretations can be used to suppress valid information and eliminate legitimate discussions, and that is a problem.
Very few, if any, people who are satisfied or agree with the decisions being made here will post. It is a well known fact that those who are unhappy speak much louder than those who are happy. So I figured I would give opinion so that everyone knows there are people out there who agree and see the benefit to strict moderation.
One thing I would like to add as criticism towards the moderator however, Is that I believe more tactful means of getting your point across could be taken. I'm sure it is stressful and frustrating dealing with endless discussions with no value, that target you and a game which you have chosen to invest your own free time to help out with. That frustration is evident every now and then, in the way you respond to people, but I think you already know this as you commented above and I will quote it. ["As someone who appreciates that kind of meta-game freedom, it galls to no end me that a lot of players are blaming the Devs design choices for the fact that they, as players, haven't even begun to explore the different ways they can use Towns. That's where my passion shows through more than it probably should;"] This statement comes off as a little passive aggressive, and could be taken as an insult by someone who reads into it wrong. Text is very hard to guage the writers attitude.
You then go on to say professional distance isn't an option for you as you don't see the benefit in cold formality. Perhaps you are right when it comes to the majority of forum users, as most people won't respect that or appreciate it. However, I strongly believe that a balance of passion and cold formality is very beneficial when you are in the position of moderator. There are people browsing the forums who will see it and appreciate it, even if they don't post to voice that appreciation.
Well that's my input and opinions on it all, good luck and I wish you the best. I think you are doing a good job moderating these forums. I'm glad to see work is still being done on Towns, and I hope with some time these discussions will become more civil and an increase of positive feedback will be found on the forums. The game has had quite the history and it would be nice to see it succeed in the end so more players can enjoy it.
Well the $15 hole in my bank account Xavi inflicted through false advertising isn't exactly respectful to me as a consumer. Had he not conducted himself in the way that he did, there'd be no fuel for the criticism which is legitimately levelled at him.
I completely understand those concerns; however, I'd like to point out that the "new rules" really just work as supplements and clarifications. As I stated in the very first line of that topic, those clarifications are based on the existing Steam guidelines - it's not about "writing new rules", but being very clear about how those rules apply to a specific situation which is important for Towns. Some users are intent on pushing the boundaries of every grey-area interpretation of their rights to discuss whichever topics; I noticed that the associated responsiblities for those discussions were conspicuous in their abscence. In other words: I set out to make sure that, while the focus is on users' rights; their responsibilities recieve equal attention (because the two are inseparable).
I appreciate that you've aired those concerns; and I'm glad that the community is taking a self-aware look at these issues. I simply ask that a bit of trust be given to take these guidelines at face value; as a safeguard against certain recurring problems, so that we can get on with the other stuff and not keep rehashing the same ground.
Naturally, these actions aren't set in stone - I'm entirely open to discussing those ammendments/supplements and finding a better option if one can be found. It's just one of those "between a rock and a hard place" calls - letting things go on as they had been would have been purely unacceptable for the vast majority of community members, and this seemed like the least offensive option.
Ah, but that point is moot (in both senses of the word) - for one, there's an infinite array of "if ___ had been different..." possibilities (a big one that springs to mind is "If the community had reacted more calmly and rationally, without threats and abuse, then there would have been more dialogue and a greater chance for a solution that worked for everyone). For seconds, the question of whether it was "false advertising" is one that can't really be settled; but a whole lot of people would say (and have said) that they could see what they were buying from the store description and that "false advertising" is code for "did not read". And finally, even if you could somehow prove that first damage was a direct result of negligence or maliciousness on Xavi's part, it's still a totally separate issue from the game's future; so bringing the topic up in threads about the future would amount to derailment.
My point is: it's an important personal belief and I won't deny or diminish that fact, but ultimately that belief has no bearing on the information being discussed. Seeking a resolution for that "$15 hole" has nothing to do with the point of these forums; that's what the support page (or send an email to support@townsgame.net) is for.
If you see an issue within a post, report it - don't moderate from the back seat.
I would hardly call that post a "specious" argument (there's only 1 point being made), and as for flame-baiting... I think we have very different definitions of that phrase. Suffice it to say that, since no argument has erupted over that post in the last day or two, and since no users have reported it as inciteful or anything else in that spectrum, it's a pretty safe bet that no flaming was baited by the remark. I would suggest that you be more careful in future to only make assertions you can provide evidence for; because there's no evidence of either of those things resulting from that post.
Ok, except the only thing even close to being "backseat moderating" in that post is the last sentence. I see that more as being a part of his attempt to call someone out on their questionable statements, which I see as more useful than simply deleting them.
After all, Nalidus merely requested that he not make those kinds of statements. It's not really trying to "enforce the forum rules" as the Steam clarification text puts it. If it were the same sentence without the words "to flame-bait" it would be quite the stretch to even try to call that "backseat moderating."
Flamebaiting doesn't require that any flaming actually take place. It's not uncommon for it to be ignored in the middle of a thread like this so saying that no flaming occurred is a pretty weak argument for the idea that it couldn't possibly be flamebaiting. Just because noone takes the bait doesn't mean it wasn't there.
That being said, I can agree it's a bit of a stretch to call that paragraph flamebait. Specious, certainly but flamebait; probably not so much. It's just a bit misguided.
I find it very interesting that you still hold the stance that you can in fact "suppliment and provide clarification" on Valves own forum rregulations, rules and TOS. Are you in fact stating you have this authority? Honestly you seem more about drama than actually making a game. I paid for this tripe a long time ago and wish it would just die already. Your own assumption of ultimate authority is the cherry on this not so great cake.