AG - Rules and FAQ

[SpacerSteve]

That was mine. I made a mention of detained octan colonist being questioned at the beginning of my build. I removed that section from my build to avoid an escalation.

[Kodan Black]

In typical American fashion stories should likely stay away from sex, nudity, etc and stick to safe for the whole family violence. ;)

I would hope that humor can be in the same line as the team's builders present it: for instance we've had builds with Octan's over-reliance on robots being our downfall, or Mantis liking gross food. As with most things in life intent is a big factor - if you set out to be nasty it will probably be poorly received. And if you set out to be funny but miss the mark you have to accept that too. I think given the 18+ requirement here that darker is certainly permissible, but we also want this to be a fun game.

Read Goatman's build again... I have to say the "rape and pillage" line seems a bit minor. I mean, I get you don't want things to escalate, but there is a fair bit of leeway on interpretation for how that could be meant. I think given the rest of the story it could be hyperbole of the destruction of the colonists instead of the literal. Like when someone says a corporation "raped the Earth" it can mean they just polluted a lot. I think there also is some amount of language barrier given the international nature of EB and certainly some colloquial phrases can be misunderstood.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Kodan Black

[goatman461]

Depicting them as marauding rapist and thugs completely fits in with their persona, behavior, and overall story arc of the game. It is extreme, but realistic to history and even current events. So if Mantis (or Kawashita) builders have a problem with that interpretation, maybe they shouldn't lavish in their own belligerent, underhanded, and violent characters.

I'll concede that that content is pushing the boundaries of any written or unwritten code of conduct, but I think it's justified in it's realism and "Eurobricks is a site intended for an adult audience." As for being fun, people are entertained by many different genres.

[rodiziorobs]

Depicting them as marauding rapist and thugs completely fits in with their persona, behavior, and overall story arc of the game. It is extreme, but realistic to history and even current events.

To be fair, this could be said about any faction or nation or pretty much any group of people throughout history. Even teams of "good guys" has people who like being bad.

I personally didn't have a problem with the way you portrayed your recent build. I think it was a way to include some more serious content and I don't have a problem with that (my own build this week alluded to cases of continued child abuse). It's not like you were pointing to any specific characters or sigfigs, which would have been problematic for me. Frankly your OoC posts like the ones in this thread seem a little more pointed than the things you included in your fiction. Like this:

So if Mantis (or Kawashita) builders have a problem with that interpretation, maybe they shouldn't lavish in their own belligerent, underhanded, and violent characters.

I have tried but I honestly don't know what you mean by this. MANTIS has had fun playing with a "bad guy" persona, but it's not like we're the only ones. Besides, I think we are all here to have fun, and I don't think anyone here is intending to be spiteful or hurt anyone else. I certainly hope so.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and my opinions are my own.

Edited February 2, 2016 by rodiziorobs

[pombe]

First, I want to make it clear that I understand that this is a sensitive issue and that I am not making light of it.

I went back and reread the post, and the word "rape" was used in general passing to set up the atmosphere, and was not actually portrayed nor was it used in a way that would point to specific characters. It created a dark and serious backdrop for the build. If there is a line, I think the post went right up to it, but did not cross it. Goatman's stories have always leaned towards realism, with all his sigfigs being fleshies with shaven hair, for instance. Even his most ridiculous entry, the one about the space whale poop asteroid station was built in a way that took into account zero gravity. How many AG builders actually take into account how real spaceships would be laid out? Hannibal, himself, has always been written as a serious character even in the best of situations, and has now become a more brooding character who has gone on some soul searching due to recent events that may have dredged up past memories for him.

I'm not saying that those of us who think the line is elsewhere and has been crossed by the post are wrong. I'm just giving my opinion on this. And just as well, since I think this discussion is worth having.

I think there is room in AG for some of the darker stories. Some of us here want something deeper and more psychological and less "oh, there's the idiot naked guy again who found the animal tree and made a pirate ship that sailed on lava!". Some of the very best science fiction comes from a dark place. Afterall, science fiction is nothing but stories about the collision of technology with the human condition, no?

In any case, I'm interested in seeing the rest of Hannibal's story.

Edited February 2, 2016 by pombe

[Big Sal]

First, thanks everyone for keeping the discussion calm and civil. We have a great little community here.

We're all creating our own versions of the AG story, and we all choose how much we want to incorporate from other players' stories. The point I want to make is this: just because goatman decided that MANTIS troops committed rape in his version of AG, it doesn't mean that MANTIS troops in your version of AG committed rape. It's not something you should feel the need to respond to or include in your stories if you don't want to.

Actually, that goes for everything that happens in other players' stories! But most of us like to include things from other people to build up a common shared universe. The judges have the responsibility and authority to guide that common story. In this case, we're explicitly stepping in to say that we don't want 'MANTIS are rapists' to become part of the common story.

I hope that makes sense! Feel free to ask questions.

[Bob De Quatre]

First, goatman, the remark wasn't directed only at you, we had a fewx examples this week. We're not saying that violence in general should be avoided in the builds or stories, just that some lines shouldn't be crossed. Regarding sex, we didn't have any problem so far, except for Eshey, but she's so prude...

[Lady K]

Depicting them as marauding rapist and thugs completely fits in with their persona, behavior, and overall story arc of the game. It is extreme, but realistic to history and even current events. So if Mantis (or Kawashita) builders have a problem with that interpretation, maybe they shouldn't lavish in their own belligerent, underhanded, and violent characters.

I'll concede that that content is pushing the boundaries of any written or unwritten code of conduct, but I think it's justified in it's realism and "Eurobricks is a site intended for an adult audience." As for being fun, people are entertained by many different genres.

I actually prefer darker Sci-Fi themes. However, for me the issue here isn't just that a line was or wasn't crossed (some darker stories are fine, some points should never be crossed no matter how dark or realistic they are) but that you in general decided that it fits the persona of all M.A.N.T.I.S personnel to be depicted as marauding rapists and thugs. Stating at the beginning of your story 'outlaws of M.A.N.T.I.S' implied they were no longer with M.A.N.T.I.S, then you stated the main objective was to save women and children from M.A.N.T.I.S. returning for more rape and pillage. That implies that all M.A.N.T.I.S personnel rape women and children. This is just my interpretation, but interpretation does matter for a good story

Edited February 2, 2016 by Lady K

[Kodan Black]

It is tough because I think all 3 corporations are "the bad guy" in a sense, but from each corporation's perspective they are the good guy. And while I know Goatman's been the most vocal in this thread I think blowing up 2 ships full of people and murder aren't necessarily better depictions of Mantis. I understand taking things personally a bit when your own corporation isn't portrayed in the best light but I think as long as its within the general realm already shown from that corporation it shouldn't be seen as abnormal.

Side note: I have no problem with either of the builds posted, just needed recent and relevant examples.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Kodan Black

[Dragonfire]

Depicting them as marauding rapist and thugs completely fits in with their persona, behavior, and overall story arc of the game. It is extreme, but realistic to history and even current events. So if Mantis (or Kawashita) builders have a problem with that interpretation, maybe they shouldn't lavish in their own belligerent, underhanded, and violent characters.

I do have a problem with this interpretation. I don't think that any Octan (or Kawa) builder has the right to define MANTIS as rapists. And I don't like that you defended your build by accusing the other corporations of creating such characters. Characters who like fighting, espionage and violence (as you have said) is one thing; characters who are rapists is quite another. Since MANTIS have never alluded to anything like this in their builds, you saying that it "fits with their persona and behaviour" is wrong. Marauders and thugs are one thing; rapists are another.

It is tough because I think all 3 corporations are "the bad guy" in a sense, but from each corporation's perspective they are the good guy. And while I know Goatman's been the most vocal in this thread I think blowing up 2 ships full of people and murder aren't necessarily better depictions of Mantis. I understand taking things personally a bit when your own corporation isn't portrayed in the best light but I think as long as its within the general realm already shown from that corporation it shouldn't be seen as abnormal.

But I think that rape crosses a line which simply killing members of other corporations doesn't. Nobody has posted a build showing their character/corporation murdering/raping innocent civilians. And so it's not only crossing a line, but attempting to alter the image of another corporation. While I agree with you that each corporation is the 'good guy' to themselves and the 'bad guy' to the other corporations, I do think that MANTIS in particular has gained a reputation for aggression and violence which the other corporations haven't. Not saying that's a bad thing, but I think that people shouldn't build on that in ways that cross lines.

[Isundir]

I actually prefer darker Sci-Fi themes. However, for me the issue here isn't just that a line was or wasn't crossed (some darker stories are fine, some points should never be crossed no matter how dark or realistic they are) but that you in general decided that it fits the persona of all M.A.N.T.I.S personnel to be depicted as marauding rapists and thugs.

Yes, I have to agree with this.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Isundir

[goatman461]

Question: if I show something being built in an engineering bay, do we get a bonus point for that?

I'm guessing it's like the spaceship tag when it's wreckage, depends on how much you show of the ship or land vehicle. Judges?

[Big Sal]

Yes, it will depend how much you show of the vehicle and how much effort went into it.

[Jody Meyer]

Thank you for the answer, what be the tag? 'Engineering bay'?...just want to make sure I get it right ....

[goatman461]

@Jody - these tags are the only ones that count, although I don't know what "vehicle" by itself is suppose to count for. As an engineer, I think you can get your job bonus just by having a building, so you wouldn't need a separate engineering tag or explicit action by your figure.

You must also choose one or more tags from the list below that describe your build:

• Military
  
• Civil
  
• Building
  
• Vehicle
  
• Spaceship / Airplane / Submarine
  
• Land/Water vehicle
  
• Spying,
  
• Piracy
  
• Exploration
  
• Science
  

@Judges - Can you please let me know if this is enough for a spaceship tag, assuming it is integral to the story?

[Big Sal]

Er, yeah, I guess so.

[EpsilonEta]

I would have aproved it for a 2 or 3 points micro build but for greater builds I think its to smal compared to the rest of the effort of a 4 and up build

[goatman461]

I would have aproved it for a 2 or 3 points micro build but for greater builds I think its to smal compared to the rest of the effort of a 4 and up build

What? Are you saying that you would approve or disapprove a spaceship tag based on the rest of the build?

[EpsilonEta]

Its my personal enturpritation on "how much effort was put in to the build". If you make a fantastic build and put in a few bricks more just to get a tag I would not aprove that tag. But if the build was only that ship and possibly a simple landingpad the ship would be a significan part of the build effort. As a guess I would say at least roughly 5% of the whole effort should be focused on the tag part (but this is my opinion)

[Big Sal]

If you make a fantastic build and put in a few bricks more just to get a tag I would not aprove that tag. But if the build was only that ship and possibly a simple landingpad the ship would be a significan part of the build effort.

Yes, exactly this.

[goatman461]

Its my personal enturpritation on "how much effort was put in to the build". If you make a fantastic build and put in a few bricks more just to get a tag I would not aprove that tag. But if the build was only that ship and possibly a simple landingpad the ship would be a significan part of the build effort. As a guess I would say at least roughly 5% of the whole effort should be focused on the tag part (but this is my opinion)

Yes, exactly this.

That's ridiculous. That means we're judging tags on a sliding scale and there's no clear line for what can count for a bonus point. With that mentality we'll be constantly guessing what y'all's interpretation of what significant means and that y'all can change your minds whenever you want. Rules are meant to give people fair warning of what the expectations are and how to stay within those lines., but y'all are just making things difficult. Some weeks I might want to focus more on a land vehicle or a civil building than a spaceship. But now I have to start guessing what you think 5% of my effort looks like.

[Big Sal]

If you want to focus more on a land vehicle, then just build a land vehicle instead of trying to shoehorn in a spaceship and a civil building as well with as little effort as possible. I'm not saying that's what you (or anyone else) does, but that's what we're trying to avoid. If we set exact minimum standards for a spaceship, people might decide to just meet those standards every week and no more. We want everyone to be pushing themselves and building their cool ideas, not robotically trying to get as many points as they can with as little effort as possible.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Big Sal

[EpsilonEta]

Well, we judges are nice (too nice if you ask me) and so far I haven't disaproved any tag based on this (but a few have been close but again, we are nice)

Myself, I build what I like for story and (exept for this week if it even count as spying at all) I haven't built for my job bonus in ages. Nor am I forceing outdoor scens to get the exploration tag.

My point is if you want to maximise bonuses the story and build options will be limited (like mantis doing a lot of spying latly). As for predicting the usefulness of the builds they already have to be part of the story and that ship you shown would be aproved for almost any build unless I get to make the tag rules more strict. but I will make a clere post in this thred far in advance if that hapen. If you are still not sure you could just make a fleet of those ships or make it beter to garante a tag even if you get a 7.

[goatman461]

I'm more concerned about y'all's perspective on the point system. It seems to me that at least two of y'all are against the bonus point system and are trying to find ways around rewarding those points.

People can build their cool ideas without the game, but ultimately here we build for points (though, some more than others), what else would be the purpose of bonus points if not to add to the teams score?

It's also insulting to assume that people are just posting half-baked, garbage mocs here. I seriously doubt that anybody that puts in the effort and has the bravery to publicly display their creations is maliciously doing so just to screw with your standards for what real "effort" looks like. Save your subjective opinions for the 1-7 score, but define your terms for the rest. If you feel that a micro spaceship takes away from the build, deduct points, but don't tell us that it's a spaceship sometimes but not others.

[Kodan Black]

So I've debated whether I should weigh in or not but I figure I'll give my 2 cents and that will be that.

I'm a bit disturbed by the use of the words "approve the tag" about some of the DP bonuses. While I understand a minimum must be met, I'm not sure based on the rules as written and the tech descriptions that I had even considered something could be "approved". 2 wing parts and a sloped brick don't make a spaceship, I get that and totally agree! However, not everyone has the same skills or parts selection and, to me, part of this game is building and getting feedback to improve. I know I'm pretty bad at microbuilding -- I just don't see the parts the same way the good builders do. I think that the only way I will improve though is to build and get feedback. If I build in micro and get a lower score, it is understandable since part of scoring is how good something is. But I think it would dissuade me from building if I was told "sorry this isn't good enough to qualify as a spaceship".

I would say that outside of obvious point grabs, there really is no approval. I know that it is tough to tell, you wind up using Justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard instead of a firm border. And I'm against setting guidelines as I do feel that people would build up to those at times instead of being creative. I've been building for AG since almost the start and I've built in each challenge and I've seen participation ebb and flow. I worry that subjectively choosing what is "good enough" to qualify for tags would have a chilling effect and likely decline participation further.