Not affiliated with either side, but I saw that nobody mentioned the blog post by freenode about this topic yet: https://freenode.net/news/for-foss
Sadly, it doesn't mention what they actually changed in their policies or why. Just that in general they seem to feel tricked by OTHER parties kicking people from freenode channels for NOT going to Libera.
My take: Instead of participating in the flame war, the best approach may just be to help both sides keep a voice, document what happens, support reasonable decisions. As long as both sides block and kick users there are no reasonable decisions to be made. Personally, I probably won't even open either chat tool until things calmed down.
As a side note, I also want to remember the time when Matrix was trying to get users by building interfaces to other chat platforms and mirroring the communication in both platforms. That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
The new "Freenode" has little to no credibility and that post comes off as pure propaganda. Look at how the new "Freenode" has behaved and it is very clear...
Official project channels should be able to ban users and move elsewhere. Freenode is welcome make new community channels on those topics. Trying to prevent or hinder official channels from moving is absolutely not acceptable behavior.
Please provide context. Assume that I have no clue what is going on. I know there's freenode, which provides IRC as a service since forever, and there is this new thing Libera. Otherwise I didn't have time to investigate anything.
I would read his statement slightly different: In that perspective, the actual game is to cheat and not follow the rules. Everybody should do it, but the banker has an advantage. Thus, everybody hates the banker for having an advantage in the actual cheating game.
I have to say, it's slightly funny to assume a multiplayer game that is entered by all the players with the clear and open intent to not follow the rules of the game.
> the clear and open intent to not follow the rules
it's great to be honest, the only way we played uno was with cheating (if you got caught, you lost the round tho)
it creates a lot of interesting cross round strategies; if you aren't close to victory in one round for example you can hide a good card and save it up for the round, for example. hiding a card or two would get you to uno quicker, but you'd have to play them at some later point or later ruond, and you couldn't win strictly by hiding because once uno is declared your count is fairly visible. but you can strategize and by deciding which card to drop open up more possibilities for matching your last card.
I suggest everyone should try a evening of full on cheating at a luck based game, it's super fun when everyone else is doing it too.
There are several board games that actually have rules that encourage cheating. I specifically remember one where the rule was basically "If you get caught during the turn on which you cheated, you need to pay a minor penalty. If the turn passes before you get caught, then you got away with it."
Yes, you can lose the meaning of all other rounds but the last. And if player strategies can maximize comebacks, then all the smart people will only focus on the comebacks and only the less experienced or relaxed players will play the actual game (and be constantly frustrated by seeming to win early on and then losing to comebacks without feeling any power to change that).
In chess, which doesn't have a clear comeback mechanic, this sometimes works out, since the impact of late game mistakes can vastly outperform early wins. So, comebacks are clearly and directly linked to the skill of the winning player making a mistake and the skill of the losing player being able to capitalize this mistake.
But even that direction doesn't come for free. As in such games skill is so important, inexperienced players fighting each other will have a lot of huge randomness in their outcomes and altogether the game only becomes fun once you reach a certain minimum skill level.
Last but not least, there are also alternatives to comebacks. For instance, in poker or pen&paper roleplaying games a factor of pure randomness is added. So, while on average the skilled players will have almost all the positive experiences that chess players have (they win more often, they have more clarity and control about the progress and current status mid-game), the unskilled players can sometimes make a lucky win which seems satisfying enough that some people get addicted to poker without ever gaining much skill.
As Monopoly also has a random element, I wonder if simply tuning the impact of randomness would make it more fun, allow for more lucky comebacks, etc. As a stupid example, maybe event cards could introduce property tax rates that stay until another event card alters them, or a renter being unhappy about the rental property won't pay the rent or even create costs through law-suits, required building repairs, or clean-ups.
> the unskilled players can sometimes make a lucky win which seems satisfying enough
I like games that have this feature, perhaps even more then a come-back mechanism.
In the game of go playing against a higher skilled player you usually have some portion of the board where you are doing better then expected. The higher skilled player might have actually "given" this result as a trade favorable to them, but that is usually not the perception of the lower skilled player.
In fact on a 19×19 board there are so many micro battles going on that the lower skilled player will usually get enough perceived good mini-results that it is enough to enjoy the game, despite knowing they will definitely loose in the end.
In addition—to take this out side of board games—as someone that is not good at sports, I like sports usually only when there is a lot of added randomness so I can get at least a lucky shot or two, even if I will loose most likely loose the game as a whole. For example when I play basketball I like it a lot better when we play on a coarse concrete, with crooked baskets and a peeling ball. Another examples include: laser-tag (er even better a nerf-gun fight) vs paint ball and disk-golf vs. traditional golf.
> inexperienced players fighting each other will have a lot of huge randomness in their outcomes and altogether the game only becomes fun once you reach a certain minimum skill level
This is a very good point.
I play chess with my children a few times a year and I was subconsciously feeling that it is not that fun.
Only after watching The Queen's Gambit I realized that the fun is there, but out of reach for me.
One thing that fit people (e.g. a trainer or coach) usually forget is that the 1-4 hours they spend every day on training, prepping their bags, showering after the training, having a chat with the other training participants, is that the unfit people don't spend this time sitting around doing nothing.
Therefore, a major step in getting a healthier lifestyle is to carve out the time for dedicated sports activities, e.g. not joining the world of warcraft boss run with Leroy Jenkins, not reading that book on your desk, and/or not playing chess with your grandpa, as you used to in that time slot.
In one of my first attempts to improve my lifestyle that was a major hurdle. But walking is easy. It doesn't need much prep, it doesn't take a strain on your resilience as "harder" exercises would, and even people who don't believe in your health goals will believe that you are capable of taking a walk once in a while. So the burden of carving out that time is much lower when starting with walking. 10k steps for a beginner also means 2hs of walking every day. When you get faster, you can replace parts of it with other training. And then the next time when your overreading goals fail, you can fall back to walking instead of couch potatoing.
"Remember: Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." - Shooter, 2007
Love the look and feel, love the page, love that it is open source. The one thing I wonder about is whether this is something anybody would pay for. I mean, if GCal would have a github project, this would be a single `feature request` type Issue. And to most people both GCal (everywhere) and Outlook (at work) are free suites. If a user sees the whole suite as a product, then why would he pay for a single feature? And if the whole suite is already "free" in the mind of the user, doesn't that make it a lot harder?
Maybe it would make sense as component of a niche-market CRM solution?
Wow. Maybe take a break, walk or smoke. The only thing I can really take from this long post is that you didn't know the category of product before. So, you don't work as coach, consultant, recruiter or similar. That's fine.
If you are not a customer and the page makes you not want to engage further, then it is a good page, isn't it?
Sadly, it doesn't mention what they actually changed in their policies or why. Just that in general they seem to feel tricked by OTHER parties kicking people from freenode channels for NOT going to Libera.
My take: Instead of participating in the flame war, the best approach may just be to help both sides keep a voice, document what happens, support reasonable decisions. As long as both sides block and kick users there are no reasonable decisions to be made. Personally, I probably won't even open either chat tool until things calmed down.
As a side note, I also want to remember the time when Matrix was trying to get users by building interfaces to other chat platforms and mirroring the communication in both platforms. That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.