Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk

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.

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

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*

Feb-16-2006 15:55

Lastly (sorry this is a drag) when in doubt put yourself in the other person’s shoes and ask yourself would I be happy with what I was saying or doing, being said or done to me?

Thanks for listening.

Feb-16-2006 15:56

lol sorry cfm i didn't mean to split your comment

Feb-16-2006 16:07

*smiles softly at Secret Squirrel* Not a problem. I don't mind being interrupted by rational thoughts. :)

Feb-16-2006 16:26

The advantage that can be gained by running 4 agencies, one in each city, has not been seen, but the potential is still there. By having a headquarters in each city, the main agency does not have to spend cases in traveling when doing a multi city hunt. They can instead rotate members that are currently in the city needed into the agency and do the cases and favors. It is a huge advantage for an agency to have 10-12 members in the home city, who can each work 100-120 cases instead of having to budget and save cases for travel or wait until server reset, just simply rotate members in who still have 10 cases and are already located in the new city.

There has never been a problem before of having many people become friends across agency lines. The problem only occurs when one agency is trying to hold more agents than they original were intended to hold. Moving inactive agents to a second agency just to pull them back into the first agency when more cases are needed or favors are needed in different cities can be seen as an unfair advantage. It could be concluded that, that way of game play is not what was intended. There have been many agencies who have risen to the very top and many more that although have not be #1 they have been very successful using only hard work and staying within the original guidelines set forth of having a maximum of 12 agents.

Feb-16-2006 18:42

I'm not sure I really understand what's going on here. Let me try figuering this out...

Mojo starts a hunt in New York. The next favor they need is in Delhi. One of their agents in their Delhi office hold the favor they need. So they kick out one of their New York (Mojo) agents (reassign that agent to another agency), send a message to the agent in Delhi, that agent resigns from that agency, accepts the invite from "the home office" (Mojo) does the favor, then resigns from Mojo and goes back to where they started from?

No travel involved? No wasting cases by traveling? You just message the person who has the favor you need, in the city you need, invite them, they join, do the favor, advance Mojo in the hunt and then leave, freeing up space for the next person that has a favor you need?

I must not have understood very well before, but if that's what's going on that's cheating, plain and simple.

There's an easy way to put a stop to that. Require that the person joining actually travel to the agency city, using up 2 cases and cash and losing any favors they're holding. It would make it pointless to have agents waiting in the wings, holding onto Delhi favors if they actually have to go to New York or London to join the agency.

Feb-16-2006 19:02

Here's a few food for thoughts.

1. To cfm's idea of only having 2 detectives per IP:

If I have a brother *chuckle* and a sister, that we all can't play?

As well, we can just get 20+ people.

2. I don't want to fully explain or discuss our strategies and such, but we are expanding into this. We aren't like this. So when you say, "How could you be doing such a thing," realize you are condemning us for something that hasn't been done.


I think Mojo and all of us there have no problem discussing your or our opinions. We are open to discussion, and we are not trying to kill the Sleuth competitivity. We are, if anything, doing the opposite. Agencies are families; friends. We are simply trying to bring even more into our family and our success.

Feb-16-2006 19:23

I actually like the idea of being able to have 3 or 4 detectives, I wanted to subscribe with all of my detectives and have nothing but my detectives in my agency, that way no one will argue with my decisions and I don't have to worry about one of my agents running off with expencive equipment.

I think if people want to pay to have more than one detective that's great, it helps pay for the game.

Feb-16-2006 19:23

More to cfm's suggestion for a limit of 2 detectives per IP address:

Yeah, it's a reasonable suggestion, but I don't like the fact that if a detective retires in the agency (and if it's yours), will the limit come into effect? I know plenty of people who create and subscribe for the purpose of agency work. And, like Jojo has stated, siblings may share your computer and IP, so what then? If they want to be a part of your agency...? There are huge loopholes in that suggestion, and I don't think it could work.

I have nothing against Mojo, I know they are trying to make the game more enjoyable. The tactic makes me smile, makes me sit back in my chair, and makes me say "What next?" And that's just that... what next?

I'll miss this thread if it gets deleted. All that time and effort is taken to reach a consensus for this debate. Anyway, just adding to the newer responses. I hope this will get somewhere soon... :)