Not entirely sure I agree with that, Flay.
Mr. Flay wrote:If mod's have ultimate authority over their games, why do we have Moderation Queues? Why do we sometimes require games to be reviewed? Why do you think mith set up the first-come-first-served criterion for queues in the first place?
This seems more like an iteration of "is-ought" to me. "That's the way it is, so that's the way it ought to be". There is nothing saying we
have
to have Moderation Queues, or reviewed games, or first-come-first-serve criterions. Also, to answer your questions:
1.) We have Moderation Queues so that each Mod has to undergo the same waiting time before they can mod their game, so that games are not being signed for in an unorganized manner. This has no bearing on how the mod is to conduct their game once it is ready for sign-ups.
2.) We have games reviewed because players tend to dislike games which later turn out to be unbalanced - this will adversely affect that players who sign up for that mod in the future. Players also like a sense of fairness; if they are given a role, they expect fair chances at being able to win with it.
3.) First-come-first-serve for queues is simply how it has always
been
: there is nothing saying that's the way it has to
stay
. Reasons were probably along the lines of organization, [general] equality, and consistency.
Mr. Flay wrote:If we go down that route, I believe we'll rapidly balkanize into cliques and mod abuse and becoming newbie unfriendly.
*slaps self to stop from mentioning slopes of slipperiness*
This, however, is likely somewhat true. The problem is, I (for one) am probably
already
at or near the stage of being frustrated with certain players and newbies who have little to no experience, and I keep thinking that I would enjoy the occasional game which guarantees that I
will not
have to play with those players. This of course ties in well with the invitationals thread, but it can also go hand-in-hand with 'banning players' in particular.
If a mod has spent time both designing a game and waiting for it to bump up the queue so it can be modded, I would certainly think they have the right to disallow players who they think will:
A.) Not understand their role, or game mechanics
B.) Not participate fully [lurk]
C.) Flake out [need replacement]
D.) Be unnecessarily crass, or insulting
E.) Have had a prior history of a problem with that mod or another game.
Designing a game is like opening a convenience store on the city block. You
still
have to follow set rules (like everybody else in the city), but it's your right to deny customers if you have good reason to do so... after all, you're only hurting your own business at your own risk.
Edit:
However, if such a discriminatory practice would hinder the movement of items or people across borders, Congress has the right to regulate or prohibit such practices under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Poli-Sci FTW!
Note: I do not think that
every
game should have such criterions; far from it. If everybody were to deny the same players the chance to play in games, it would be overly discriminatory and allow those players little to no chances to change what is "wrong" with their play. Of course, Newbie Games and Open Set-Up Games [since they have fixed set-ups which do not vary with Mods] should have no means for denial excepting for technical rules (such as "you can't play in more than 2 newbie games at a time", etc).
). So I certainly agree that invitationals shouldn't be the norm (though if they were I suppose the A-list and B-list players would have to turn down so many that newbies still did get a look-in). But what's the harm in thinking "I've worked really hard for a good set-up that I know Zindaras, MeMe, Stoofer, Fritz, AniX, Pooky, Rainbow Brite and CES would really appreciate - and all the more if they could play it with one another", what's the harm?
