Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
Mojo Enterprises
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

R Anstett
R Anstett

Feb-12-2006 17:59

The time is here to start invitations to Mojo Enterprises.

http://www.geocities.com/sleuth.mojo/home.html

This is a group effort by several detectives to create a fun, helpful and competitive enviroment for people to participate in.

We welcome you to look over our guidelines, our code of conduct and mission statement.

To show that we want to help everyone we are also posting for the first ime in public some (not all ;) ) of Mojo's hunting guidelines.

Replies

jstkdn
jstkdn
Well-Connected

Feb-16-2006 07:18

And ask yourself, is having this worth it to you? Was sleuth such a horrible place to be when you only had 1 active agency? (sleeping agencies is not what we are discussing here.) Is it worth it to have others be unhappy by it? If the answer is in favor of having it, then just say so and then we all just have to learn to live with it, and see where it takes us. Then we will see in the future who is right and who is wrong.

There are no formal written rules. However the lawyer in me knows that formal written rules can be equally important in a court room as unwritten rules. It's in terms of unwritten rules where we disagree, some feel there are unwritten rules and some don't. Some feel that this is going to distroy the community, others feel it will enhance it. Discussion is good.

Mojo I’d copy and paste the header of this thread myself so you guys can have a clean recruitment thread. Please do so, should take you a few seconds.

Now that this thread is moved to sleuttalk, discussion about anything else then this issue is off topic.


R Anstett
R Anstett

Feb-16-2006 07:53

The way I see things this is the natural normal evolution of agencies.

As stated before there are at least two functions for an agency.

Hunting and community.

Having a group of agencies opening and honestly telling everyone that they are cooperating and sharing can not be a bad thing if the alternative is secretive behind the scenes scuttling in the dark.

Yes I personally see why others are upset. Change is upsetting. Being upset does not stop the change. I am being told that this is the third time this issue has come up. The community needs to ask itself why that is.

If there is a balance issue it is with hunting. Multiple agencies can not hunt for each other as was correctly pointed out. Mutiple agencies can share detectives and choose which agency to "push" just like any good agency helps to "push" an individual detective.

As to the point of rules written and unwritten.

Rotation of detectives in and out of an agency is part of the rules. It can not be "unfair" to follow the rules and do things that are allowed under them. I have suggested in other threads possible solutions to the issue of rotation. Please go there and make a comment as to how a rule could be implemented.


One last point in this post and I will let others post their opinions.

If we wanted to create uber agencies that were built to intentionaly harm other agencies the easiest way to do that is to quickly build up a large group of agencies and have multiple ones in each city. We have demonstated that is not our intention by declining applications by other agencies to join us. This is a way to build community and help strengthen ties between agencies.

I know that if Detective X comes to us and asks for help in obtaining a set of Orbs for her agency we would do that. Does it make the game easier for that other detective becasue we are willing to help them get the best price? Likely yes. Does it make for a better community? I think it does.

jstkdn
jstkdn
Well-Connected

Feb-16-2006 08:11

Looks in her crystal ball: the community will always be split on this. There are reasons for and against, on both sides.


R Anstett
R Anstett

Feb-16-2006 08:23

I agree with you.

The only thing that makes me feel upset is that people claim that following the rules is somehow unfair.

I never expect people to automatically agree (or disagree) with me, I want a lively debate where everyone gets to make their points.

Yet that does not mean that one side has to win, both can be equally valid.

Jojo
Jojo
Old Shoe

Feb-16-2006 13:32

I think the debate on this will always be going on.

Either there is a set rule for it by Ben or there will always be this argument.


I think R Anstett and I think we have the right to do this. Whether people agree with it or not, it can/is going to be done. That's not to say, "We're gonna do it so deal with it." Not at all. We simply find nothing wrong with the concept. I know for a fact agencies in the past (which I shall not name in specific) have done this type of thing and become very successful. Either no one cared then or no one knew.

Colonel Shanty
Colonel Shanty

Feb-16-2006 14:42

Well, I know Mojo means well when they want to create Mojo Enterprises. And it is natural for this to become a heated debate over whether this will ruin the community, or it will help it. But let me give you a brief view of what I see in this...

My agency is falling apart. I thought if I could have an alliance with the Mojo's, my agency would be restored and everything would be back to normal. After the founder left unexpectadly, I knew Mr. T's would be in ruins in a couple of weeks. Thank God Sam Average stepped forward and is continuing to support my agency.

I'm not sure whether I should be disappointed that the Enterprises has rejected my agency. Sure, I'm not getting the alliance I thought I wanted, but the points everyone has made is slowly changing my mind. Will Sleuth's community crumble if it becomes eerily like Survivor? Or will it make it more enjoyable?

I'm deciding that everyone should lay off with the alliances and stick to the game and enjoy it. My verdict is that adopting alliances for this game is going overboard. If everyone has an alliance, where would all the competition go? And it certainly won't help if another uber agency is created. That would cause too much fighting.

Then there is the unsubscribed players who have never experienced an agency. Some are probably ignoring the issue, others are probably fussing over it. Where would they stand in this? We're treating them like an audience. But then again, none of this concerns them...

Ben should make a decision. We should let him decide where his game should be going. He created it, and he's the one who shall rule it. I've said enough already. I'd better go and catch up on cases that I've missed.

Makensie Brewer
Makensie Brewer
Super Steeper

Feb-16-2006 14:54

I think it should be a choice. The game can still be enjoyed and noone is forcing anyone to be in an alliance. If you don't want to be in one, great...don't. The competition is still there,no matter what.

I do see where everyone is coming from, but I don't see anything as unfair. That is MY opinion.

As you said, Ben should and is the one who makes the final decision , and whatever happens, happens. Whether we're for the change, or against, we'll have to accept it....no matter which way it turns. I will enjoy the game either way :)

cfm
cfm
Nomad

Feb-16-2006 15:50

Okay, I've been silent because I've been so frustrated I can't see straight. However, I have a few things I'd like to say that I haven't seen here, and maybe even a suggestion that will bring about a solution.

For those who don't know, I was a Mojo member until recently. Mojo has my heart. It always will. Before there are any misunderstandings, I did not leave Mojo because of their strategy choices. Personally, I don't have an issue with the Enterprises, other than I'm lazy and don't want to work that hard. :)

Mojo has followed the rules, and even adjusted to new ones as they are set forth. With no complaint about the rules themselves, just the spitefulness that accompained them in a few places. As far as I know the stick to the 2 agent per person rule in an agency at anyone time, which, by the way, is more than I can say for some other well known agencies. The 48 hour rule is automatic just like the favor changes, so someone tell me if I'm missing a KNOWN, SPELLED OUT rule that they have broken.

I see neither side here really validating the other. I don't see words being put into people's mouth. I see misunderstandings not being straightened out because people aren't listening, they simply want to get their way. You can't always change someone's mind. Sometimes, you can only accept that you will have a difference of opinion.

I understand the concern for the community, the fear of Mega Corps. People claim they don't like the idea of alliances, but, really, agency ARE alliances. I know recruiting sucks. There is nothing I hate more than recruiting. Having to recruit for 4 agencies...no thanks.

I understand that Mojo feels attacked. They are being attacked. But instead of just defending their actions, they really should address the feelings of the community. That, or sit quietly.

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Feb-16-2006 15:54

I don’t have anything to gain from this. Yes, I have an agency, but it’s just full of old case files, Coats of the Gentle Warrior and Art Deco Clogs. So I’m willing to offer this as an impartial comment, hopefully taken in good faith.

1. Mojo is right. They are quite within their rights to do what they are doing. There is no written rule to say that multiple agencies can’t form a conglomeration and work together. And some of the rationale and ethos behind the conglomerate are quite noble ie fostering co-operation and teaching newbies the game. I think they should be applauded for that aspect.

2. There are other peoples whose opinions don’t gel with Mojo’s. Those opinions are valid. And, in the most part, for the good of this community. (As are Mojo’s I re-iterate.)

2. However, lots of people are talking about ‘rights’ and ‘rules’. When perhaps it might be better [as Jstkdn is trying to do] to talk about ‘responsibilities’. What are our responsibilities to each other? Not only as a cyber community but as people in general? Because we are ‘real’ people, not just words on a screen.

If I impinge on someone else’s enjoyment of something, whilst trying to satisfy my own needs, or the needs of my friends, or through some self-perceived altruistic need, is this really a good thing?

As ‘good’ as it intended is it still ‘good’?

I don’t think Mojo should shot down in flames for trying to do a *positive* (sorry I’d like to bold that) thing for their members and newbies, but by the same token perhaps they need to see the bigger picture, step back, and look at what they can do for ‘everyone’.

Likewise others need to see Mojo in a postive light, not say OK they are the Borg [though I like the analogy] and they’re trying to assimilate us all, or drive us out of the competition, but instead say, OK what’s ‘good’ about this, how can the community [if possible] get together to make something worthwhile out of it.

more sorry

cfm
cfm
Nomad

Feb-16-2006 15:54

I think what we have here is a fear of too much power in one place. This is a concern that has been from the beginning, which is why Ben gave the original rule , and only rule as far as I can tell, of only 2 detectives per agency.

I would like to suggest we go back to this control, rather than constantly adding new rules when we don't like the way someone is working.

Why not expand it to 2 detectives per person, period. Whether this is pass sharing or personal detectives. I don't know how difficult it would be to monitor this when needed. The orginal idea was that no one person could control an entire agency. With pass sharing, it is very, very easy for one person to control an entire agency. Anyone who knows me knows I have no issue with pass sharing, but I do think that if we limit access to detectives, which was the original idea behind controls here in Sleuth, we can solve all of these arguments we've been having lately.

Access to 2 detectives per IP address.

Just a thought.

*walks steadily back to her office and works her cases*

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]