From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 12:49:18 2007 From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:19:18 -0230 Subject: [War_ooc] Canada 2013 Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70708120949s7c10ef76j9a95a29f16db3710@mail.gmail.com> Leader: Prime Minister R. Leon MacIntyre Country: Canada Ruling Party/Coalition: Liberal Party of Canada (Majority Government, 165/308 Seats) --- Political Landscape: The Conservatives win a majority in 2009 (under the election calender set out by Act C-16 of Parliament), taking 160 of 308 seats. The bitter defeat of the separatists in a referendum in Quebec by a 62% earlier that year left the Bloc Quebecois reeling; the Liberals were able to sweep up most of the province and become a strong opposition to Prime Minister Harper's government. The NDP did not fair very well either, taking only just enough seats to remain an official party. However the recession of the 2010-2011 caused economic slowdown in the United States occurred at an inopportune time for the Conservatives; failures by the Harper government to reinvigorate the Canadian beef and cattle industry globally and find a common border policy with the United States combined with general irritation at the recession caused headaches in the approval polls that would dog the CPC. At the same time, many backbenchers in the Conservative caucus felt that the PMO was concentrating too much power into itself and ignoring the cabinet and party as a whole. Deep divides began to grow between the party leadership and rank-and-file MPs, especially ones from Eastern ridings. The 2012 budget introduced by the Harper administration cut back significantly the transfer payments diverted from the Western provinces to the East, and also contained several other taxation and spending clauses that the Quebec provincial government quickly railed against. Combined with the growing infighting within the party itself, the Liberals were able to bring the government down in a non-confidence vote. Very quickly, the Liberals maneuvered themselves into a strong position over the Conservatives. The Bloc Quebecois had completely imploded, leaving the Liberals to once again have their way with that province. Secondly, Harper was unable to reconcile longstanding disputes between the 'Eastern' and 'Western' wings of the Conservatives Party left over from the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party. This infighting on the part of the Conservatives played right into the hands of the Liberals, who traditionally had a closer relationship with their provincial branches. Finally, concentration of media power in Toronto and Montreal (traditionally dominated by the Liberals) and better support in urban areas was the a decisive advantage against the Conservatives, who drew their traditional support from more rural parts of Canada. The Liberals won the election with a 165-seat majority, with the Conservatives rounding out second with 135. The NDP were clobbered, keeping only the most far-left ridings scattered throughout Canada and backed only be die-hard socialists who wanted some voice in Parliament. Their more moderate members, such as former leader Jack Leyton, either retired or defected to the Grits. It is rumored that the NDP may not have the funds to continue operating beyond 2014. R. Leon MacIntyre, former Premier of New Brunswick and five-year veteran of the House, was selected by the party caucus as leader (and thus PM) just prior to the election. However his ascent was not without stiff competition from more prominent Liberal MPs from Quebec and Ontario. Post-election, the Liberal backbenchers have made it quite clear that the dictatorial rule past prime minister's have held over the party caucus will not fly well, pointing to the downfall of Prime Minister Harper. Thus far the new PM has spared the rod and promised more open voting for the government side of the house. Stephen Harper is down, but not out. While he returned to the Opposition side of the House, he's been impressive as a backbencher; Age and his defeat have mellowed his rhetoric a bit, and he's been said to be using his newly-acquired free time (such as it is) to pursue a second master's degree, this time in psychology. He is conspicuously not commenting on whether or not he'll try for the top again. Seating is as follows: Liberals- 165 Conservatives- 135 NDP- 8 Economy: Unavoidably, the recession of 2010-2011 affected Canada through its large and intricate trade relationship with the United States. The large automotive industry of Southern Ontario was hardest hit, while the country's massive oil, energy and logging industries shrugged the recession off with only limited market shrinkage. Tight inspection and regulation of imported cattle feed and Federal investment into new forms of inoculation has allowed the beef industry to weather the recession as best as can be imagined, and a growing market in China and the rest of East Asia has allowed the Canadian cattle industry to start getting back on its feet. White-collar crime has become an issue in Canada, where it has not been nearly as investigated or prosecuted as in the United States. The bankruptcy of several prominent Toronto-based companies in early 2011 brought this issue much further into the public eye, and the MacIntyre Government has in coordination with the RCMP's Financial Crimes Department promised a crackdown on corporate fraud. Regional economic imbalance has slowly been dealt with by a growth of mining and oil exploration in the Territories and offshore oil profits in Atlantic Canada. Finally, after well over twenty years, the Atlantic fish stocks have recovered and are entering into a large growth stage thanks to good administration and environmental protection by Canada with a little help from the US, though stocks may not quite reach pre-moratorium levels. Rigorous Coast Guard and Navy patrols have kept European trawlers not there by invitation out of Canadian fishing waters. Now all Ottawa has to do is keep Canadian boats from over fishing. The Territories are still heavily dependent upon transfer payments from Ottawa, however. Social Issues: Canada was caught in the post-2010 religious upswing, though not as much as their American relatives. Both federal and provincial governments strictly adhere to the separation of church and state. Currently Ottawa is content to allow provinces to administer same-sex civil unions at their own discretion, though has adamantly insisted that churches are not bound by provincial or federal law due to secularism and may do as they see fit. As of yet there is no talk of limiting abortion. Alberta and the Prairie Provinces have the highest attendance rates, with the Catholic Church gaining more attendance in Quebec. The Atlantic Provinces are also starting to feel the upswing, Catholic Newfoundland . Ontario and BC remain largely secular. Immigration is starting to become a hot-button issue in Canada. The Conservative Government made large cuts to immigration quotas in 2010, ending what was at one point the most liberal immigration policy in the Western world. As well, qualifications and standards for new immigrants have been boosted. Now, immigrants must undertake mandatory testing to have a functional knowledge of either French or English. While the MacIntyre government as increased the immigration quota, it has thus far seen fit to leave the standards higher than it was over the past fifteen years Language is no longer the issue that it once was; the Federal government remains very strictly bilingual, with stringent language training and requirements for MPs, agency heads, and other prominent government officials. The CF has ended the practice of organizing units along linguistic lines, and now all commissioned officers are required to have a working knowledge of both English and French. Quebec: The separatist movement in Quebec, to no one's great surprise, is very quickly running out of steam. Heavy dependence on inter-provincial trade and Federal contracts has made independence economically unviable for Quebec. Ottawa's willingness to allow Quebec to preserve and protect aspects of its distinctive French culture and retain French language laws have also lent little credence to the cultural arguments of major separatist groups such as the now-defunct Bloc Quebecois. Politically, the regional Parti Quebecois has continually failed to unseat the ruling Liberal provincial government, though has managed to force it into consecutive minority governments since 2007. Defence: The Afghan War taught Canada many harsh lessons about warfare in the 21st Century. Mounting public pressure to withdraw from the war with (comparatively) low losses did not help the credibility of the Canadian Forces in the eyes of Canada's NATO allies. Issues of equipment, training and funding also became apparent problems. One USMC general once famously referred to the CF as the 'Red Army of NATO: a proud group with a proud history and a very bleak future.' A special committee of the Canadian Senate drafted a document, named the Byron Report after the lead Senator of the committee, that advocated several changed for the Canadian Forces. These changes included new arms acquisitions, a breakdown of the ineffective unified command structure back into the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Forces and Royal Canadian Navy, the creation of two operational brigades for the Regular Forces, acquisition of strategic lift aircraft and an increase in the defence budget to a set peacetime level of 2% of the GDP, in keeping with the average per capita military spending of the other NATO countries. Unfortunately the end of the Afghan War and onset of the global recession made military reform a low priority for both the Harper and MacIntyre governments. While the reorganization of the CF into separate service branches has finally been completed, the rest of the Byron Report's recommendations have not been addressed, despite continued pressure from the Pentagon who have made no secret that they feel Canada must 'mature' as a military power and rely less upon the United States for protection. Currently the defence budget is 1.3% of the GDP, which equates to 16.5 billion US Dollars. From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 11:45:45 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:45:45 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now Message-ID: Hi, everybody. It's awfully quiet around here. So I figure now is a good time to put some things out on the table. Because these issues need to be settled. First off. The World Reports. There are separate questions here that need to be answered, though they are linked. 1. Are they useful? 2. Should they continue in their present form? 3. If they should not, what should replace them to decide game actions and advance the plot? 4. If they should, what changes should be made? Next off. The GMs. Currently, WAR is designed around a 3-GM system. Unfortunately, Ian is often a bit flighty in whether or not we know if he's still alive. This may not be his fault, but it's posing a problem. Because, see, me and Chris are often about to kill each other. It just has not been good to have the two active GMs playing countries which are more often than not competing with each other - that *does* work, but we *need* a third GM. To mediate, to go "Okay, guys, quit sniping and cool down", to take some of the workload off our shoulders. To provide a third brain to help us. So. Ian: Step up, my friend. Are you still with us? Do you still want to be a GM? Speak, man! Post! Give us some signal you're among the land of the living! (Silence must, in this case, be presumed to be a negative answer, not consent as would usually be the case.) If he doesn't answer...Ehh, let's say within a week (by 8/28/07), then we can presume he's not going to. The question is: How do YOU, the players (lurkers can comment too!), think it should be? Should we have one GM? Three? Some other number? (We need GMs; no matter how much the option of 'none' might appeal, it would not be practical.) Should there be some division of labor, or should each GM be responsible for everything? Speak, speak. Please. On that note: I suck at advertising. I love to deal with newbies once they've sent in an application and made themselves known to us, but I am no good at getting people to actually take that step. If anybody here wants to take up that task, -go ahead-. Please. Because we need people. John From martellian at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 15:23:59 2007 From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:23:59 -0700 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fair enough John, I am here. I am *trying* to post. Except that it's been an exceptionally busy time for me, but I am still in and still very interested in being both a player and a GM. I am working on scheduling so that I can have some time to post and get more involved in things. PS Chris and Mike, what's going on re: the Beijing Conference post, as I said before it's really just hanging there after Nemerenko's last comment. Anyhow, WRs I think are vital, they certianly help me get motivated, yeah, yeah it's hard to tell when I am motivated. =) Anyhow I think they fine as they are. That's all from me, with luck and a lack of nitpicking on my part, I should have a couple of posts out tonight. Ian >From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu >Reply-To: war_ooc at esteroic.com >To: war_ooc at esteroic.com >Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:45:45 -0400 > >Hi, everybody. > >It's awfully quiet around here. > >So I figure now is a good time to put some things out on the table. > >Because these issues need to be settled. > >First off. > >The World Reports. > >There are separate questions here that need to be answered, though >they are linked. > >1. Are they useful? > >2. Should they continue in their present form? > >3. If they should not, what should replace them to decide game actions >and advance the plot? > >4. If they should, what changes should be made? > >Next off. > >The GMs. > >Currently, WAR is designed around a 3-GM system. > >Unfortunately, Ian is often a bit flighty in whether or not we know if >he's still alive. This may not be his fault, but it's posing a problem. > >Because, see, me and Chris are often about to kill each other. > >It just has not been good to have the two active GMs playing countries >which are more often than not competing with each other - that *does* >work, but we *need* a third GM. To mediate, to go "Okay, guys, quit >sniping and cool down", to take some of the workload off our >shoulders. To provide a third brain to help us. > >So. > >Ian: Step up, my friend. Are you still with us? Do you still want to >be a GM? > >Speak, man! Post! Give us some signal you're among the land of the >living! > >(Silence must, in this case, be presumed to be a negative answer, not >consent as would usually be the case.) > >If he doesn't answer...Ehh, let's say within a week (by 8/28/07), then >we can presume he's not going to. > >The question is: > >How do YOU, the players (lurkers can comment too!), think it should be? > >Should we have one GM? Three? Some other number? > >(We need GMs; no matter how much the option of 'none' might appeal, it >would not be practical.) > >Should there be some division of labor, or should each GM be >responsible for everything? > >Speak, speak. Please. > >On that note: > >I suck at advertising. I love to deal with newbies once they've sent >in an application and made themselves known to us, but I am no good at >getting people to actually take that step. > >If anybody here wants to take up that task, -go ahead-. Please. >Because we need people. > >John > >_______________________________________________ >War_ooc mailing list >War_ooc at esteroic.com >http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is the next generation of MSN Hotmail.? It?s fast, simple, and safer than ever and best of all ? it?s still free. Try it today! www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA146 From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 16:56:44 2007 From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:26:44 -0230 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70708211356x51472e66g33473766bb5e5be1@mail.gmail.com> If it is so quiet, and there only limited posts coming out, why are there delays in the WR? Why is it so difficult that it must be changed? I was for some time under the impression that they were supposed to come out every two weeks. But we only have a few posts and almost a month between WRs. To me it seems there is all the time in the world to do them. From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 17:38:32 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:38:32 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70708211356x51472e66g33473766bb5e5be1@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b6ab8a70708211356x51472e66g33473766bb5e5be1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Generally, it seems, they don't get done unless there's a gun to people's heads. *shrug* I kinda gave up on hounding about em, because it felt like I had to keep doing that endlessly. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Downey Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now To: war_ooc at esteroic.com > If it is so quiet, and there only limited posts coming out, why are > there delays in the WR? Why is it so difficult that it must be > changed? I was for some time under the impression that they were > supposed to come out every two weeks. But we only have a few posts and > almost a month between WRs. To me it seems there is all the time in > the world to do them. From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 18:20:11 2007 From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:50:11 -0230 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: <6b6ab8a70708211356x51472e66g33473766bb5e5be1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70708211520q7da15935re193246d4095c23@mail.gmail.com> I understand that the GMs may have a workload, and I am more than happy to help write the WR if that will assist. From vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 22:31:25 2007 From: vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com (Vampi Digitalwytch) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:31:25 -0600 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, having been in far too many sims over the years, it's my opinion that WAR for the most part a unique entry into the category. It's genre doesn't lend itself easy for advertising like Trek or Xmen, and does more or less have the reputation for being dry as all hell for those not in the Poli-Sci classes. The GM structure works fairly smoothly compared to other sims I've pretty much fled shrieking from, and speaking as a player, it's reassuring to know that there's a GM on shift in case of whoknowswhat. In a way it reminds me of my 'brain trust' of AGMs-CoGMs that helped make the standard order of chaos of my sims somehow perform miracles and last as long as they did. With all that said, for the most part WAR does seem fine to me save for a few clunkers. The WAR reports tended to be the sticker with my posts. It's probably a me issue, but with whichever country I'd be writing for, I would often have to repace because I did/do worry about keeping things realistic and plausible and did rely probably heavier than most on those reports to not blunder into something that'd set John's eyes twitching. Because posts can be sporadic here due to the natural pace of RL, the reports were a nice way of making sure nothing was forgotten as well as knowing how effective one's efforts were with one's respective nation in game. Taking into account how much on average we've got on our plates with standard life, it probably would be a good idea to work out some delegation of tasks within the sim so no one feels like it's all on them or being overwhelmed. Not sure what more can be said that's not been debated before. > The question is: > > How do YOU, the players (lurkers can comment too!), think it should be? > > Should we have one GM? Three? Some other number? > > (We need GMs; no matter how much the option of 'none' might appeal, it > would not be practical.) > > Should there be some division of labor, or should each GM be > responsible for everything? > > Speak, speak. Please. > > On that note: > > I suck at advertising. I love to deal with newbies once they've sent > in an application and made themselves known to us, but I am no good at > getting people to actually take that step. > > If anybody here wants to take up that task, -go ahead-. Please. > Because we need people. > > John > -- --I know there are no lifeguards in the gene pool, but damn, there ought to be at least a few sharks in the water. From Chazenesq2b at aol.com Tue Aug 21 22:48:38 2007 From: Chazenesq2b at aol.com (Chazenesq2b at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:48:38 EDT Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now Message-ID: John, you have a 'very' subjective view of things, and that's putting it mildly. I've been kind enough to lay off of you despite my inclinations before, but keep whining about how you're the only one who does anything and I'll start giving you something to cry about. That being said, we need to keep the WR, as is I think. I know, I was all for abandoning it, but I honestly don't see any other way of evaluating actions. This being said, I don't think we need things to be as detailed as we normally are. Any elaboration can be made OOC as to what the GM's intentions were. I think the GM structure works fine. Fight as we do John and I normally get things done. Ian, can you check your E-mail filters? You're usually good about getting back to me, but John has a perennial complaint about not hearing from you, are you blocking him by accident or something? In terms of advertising, I'm not sure we 'need' advertising. WAR loans itself to being a small group... it's what makes the world go round... haha. In either case, what we 'do' need are people who post. We get new applications every now and again, and John to his credit does play the welcome wagon role really well... however they're just 'not' following through. It may be frustration with the application process (ie the nation bios) but those are something needed to keep WAR as is, and honestly I'd rather they not join up if they don't have the initiative to work (with or without help) on those. In short, I think WAR is fine the way it is. We're all a bit upset because posting isn't what we're used to, which is fair enough, and cause for concern. However WAR 'IS' still chugging along, despite the fact many of us have grown from when we first signed up and gained other responsibilities. John's graduated and looking for a job, Dan's in Grad school, Pat and Lisa are both hard workers, even I managed to find a job. And yes, that means we have less time for WAR, but the fact we 'make' time for it should speak highly of our commitment to this game. So, in summary... Mike I'd like to borrow you to surf Nova's web site and see what kind of publicity we're getting there. Let me know, I know Pat Weber fairly well, and if we can use some more 'glitz' or name time on their main page to draw in the plebes, I'll ask him for it. John, an idea occurs to me, about what Lisa said as WAR is usually gained towards Poli Sci types. Why don't we try recruiting Poli Sci types? Blogs, message boards, even school websites... peruse through them when you have the time (this isn't time sensitive) and see if there are any promising fields for tilling out there. The more you can get, the better. When we both have a moment we can gather whoever's interested in helping out together and organize a coherent recruitment strategy. Let me know what you all think, and any other concerns any of you may have. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20070821/3508b641/attachment.html From pbuck11 at aol.com Tue Aug 21 22:59:05 2007 From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Pat B) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:59:05 -0600 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CBA679.1010908@aol.com> Since it was asked. Let me start at the beginning. The WR is a good useful tool, but the big problem is, untill the wr comes out we don't know what happens, did we succede did we fail, what are teh concequences? it is not known untill the WR hits and with the current situation that is hit or miss, then people stop posing because we can't proceeded untill we know what happened, this is a problem. When I started out in WAR under the Welch era, there was one good thing we had, that we ended up getting rid of, which was a bad thing. the NPC GM, one person who did not play a country and had responsibility for the WR, flash alerts, rulings as needed. the other GM's provided support/backup as needed but could play countries. The reason this was good, was the GM had no country to post for, this person had all the time to work on a WR or give a ruling. To me that would be a good idea especially with the WR issues that have been cropping up. I'd like to suggest it be something we look in to again. From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 22:59:43 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:59:43 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Vampi Digitalwytch Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:31 pm Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now To: war_ooc at esteroic.com > Well, having been in far too many sims over the years, it's my opinion > that WAR for the most part a unique entry into the category. It's > genre doesn't lend itself easy for advertising like Trek or Xmen, and > does more or less have the reputation for being dry as all hell for > those not in the Poli-Sci classes. We try to shake that off, but it's hard to make geopolitics as interesting as Trek or Xmen. We're limited by the subject matter, really. We'll always be kinda wonkish (if, I hope, rather more approachable!), the question is how do we advertise whole recognizing that fact? > The GM structure works fairly smoothly compared to other sims I've > pretty much fled shrieking from, and speaking as a player, it's > reassuring to know that there's a GM on shift in case of whoknowswhat. > In a way it reminds me of my 'brain trust' of AGMs-CoGMs that helped > make the standard order of chaos of my sims somehow perform miracles > and last as long as they did. It works, yes...But only to a point. > With all that said, for the most part WAR does seem fine to me save > for a few clunkers. > > The WAR reports tended to be the sticker with my posts. It's probably > a me issue, but with whichever country I'd be writing for, I would > often have to repace because I did/do worry about keeping things > realistic and plausible and did rely probably heavier than most on > those reports to not blunder into something that'd set John's eyes > twitching. I...Okay, I *was* that bad. I'm better now. Well, I hope.:) > Because posts can be sporadic here due to the natural pace of RL, the > reports were a nice way of making sure nothing was forgotten as well > as knowing how effective one's efforts were with one's respective > nation in game. I know this. > Taking into account how much on average we've got on our plates with > standard life, it probably would be a good idea to work out some > delegation of tasks within the sim so no one feels like it's all on > them or being overwhelmed. ...There really *is* none. Especially over the last year or two, it's been very ad hoc, very much randomly doing stuff. Sometimes, it feels like I'm doing everything; I have no doubt Chris often feels like there are times -he's- doing everything. But the reality is that the WRs are -still- done sort of "as we get around to it", take more arguing and hot tempers (and rather longer to do) than they should, and have for a while been done by me and Chris on our own. (Ian is very, very hard to contact.) Add in how few people are posting *looks around meaningfully*, and I personally am like, "Okay...Is anyone still here?" John From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 23:26:33 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:26:33 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Chazenesq2b at aol.com Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now To: war_ooc at esteroic.com > John, you have a 'very' subjective view of things, and that's > putting it > mildly. I've been kind enough to lay off of you despite my > inclinations before, > but keep whining about how you're the only one who does anything > and I'll > start giving you something to cry about. ...Naturally, I see your post AFTER I send in my reply to Lisa... > That being said, we need to keep the WR, as is I think. I know, I > was all > for abandoning it, but I honestly don't see any other way of > evaluating > actions. This being said, I don't think we need things to be as > detailed as we > normally are. Any elaboration can be made OOC as to what the GM's > intentions > were. I think you may be right. On the other hand, some part of me has always liked having the WR as sort of a central narrative to the game. So, you're right...But how do we go 'less-detailed' without cutting out a lot of the storybits? > I think the GM structure works fine. Fight as we do John and I > normally get > things done. Ian, can you check your E-mail filters? You're > usually good > about getting back to me, but John has a perennial complaint > about not hearing > from you, are you blocking him by accident or something? And to think, usually I blame Scranton. (I'll be shifting from this email address eventually, BUT I dunno when I lose it.) > In terms of advertising, I'm not sure we 'need' advertising. WAR > loans > itself to being a small group... it's what makes the world go > round... haha. In > either case, what we 'do' need are people who post. We -do- need advertising. At some point, we need fresh blood. It's gotten...Kinda bad. > We get new > applications > every now and again, and John to his credit does play the welcome > wagon role > really well... Thank you for the praise, always appreciated.:) For what it's worth, we get an application *maybe* once every three or four months if we're lucky. > however they're just 'not' following through. It > may be > frustration with the application process (ie the nation bios) but > those are > something needed to keep WAR as is, and honestly I'd rather they > not join up if > they don't have the initiative to work (with or without help) on > those. I would agree, except that...Well, we -do- need fresh blood. > In short, I think WAR is fine the way it is. We're all a bit > upset because > posting isn't what we're used to, which is fair enough, and cause > for > concern. However WAR 'IS' still chugging along, despite the fact > many of us have > grown from when we first signed up and gained other > responsibilities. John's > graduated and looking for a job, Dan's in Grad school, Pat and > Lisa are both > hard workers, even I managed to find a job. And yes, that means > we have less > time for WAR, but the fact we 'make' time for it should speak > highly of our > commitment to this game. Which it does. But in order for this creation we've all helped live to keep living, we gotta get new people in to replace for attrition. > So, in summary... Mike I'd like to borrow you to surf Nova's web > site and > see what kind of publicity we're getting there. Let me know, I > know Pat Weber > fairly well, and if we can use some more 'glitz' or name time on > their main > page to draw in the plebes, I'll ask him for it. > > John, an idea occurs to me, about what Lisa said as WAR is usually > gained > towards Poli Sci types. Why don't we try recruiting Poli Sci > types? Blogs, > message boards, even school websites... peruse through them when > you have the > time (this isn't time sensitive) and see if there are any > promising fields for > tilling out there. The more you can get, the better. When we > both have a > moment we can gather whoever's interested in helping out together > and organize > a coherent recruitment strategy. I...I wouldn't even know where to start looking. I'll be really honest: I am no salesman. I can't sell water to folks -in the desert-, it's that simple. I have no idea how to advertise. I'm also not nearly as 'plugged in' as I once was. At the moment, I'll be honest, I'm kind of a shut-in. If anyone *does* know, -speak up-. The way I always explained WAR, say, to Kay, was this: WAR is about the *story* that is history-in-the-making; it's not just a prettied-up game of Risk. Sometimes it's a lot drier story than your average Hollywood blockbuster; Sometimes, it can be more terrifying than filmmakers could ever, ever dream of. We've unintentionally managed to predict future events (or at least, likely probabilities) on at *least* one occasion. (Raise your hand if you were here for the Boston LNG tanker bombing that got doors knocked on by the FBI after 9/11! Oh, and when Eric posted about North Korea going nuclear...the night before North Korea...went nuclear...) But while we're mostly bookish types, we try to aim higher. For the stories, not merely dry facts. The emotions, the sensations, not merely a bland newsreading. On our better days, we produce real emotions, or at least we get the reader to think. Hopefully, even when we don't hit that height, it's as much fun to read as it is to write. From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 23:32:40 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:32:40 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: <46CBA679.1010908@aol.com> References: <46CBA679.1010908@aol.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat B Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now To: war_ooc at esteroic.com > When I started out in WAR under the Welch era, there was one good > thing we had, that we ended up getting rid of, which was a bad thing. > the NPC GM, one person who did not play a country and had > responsibilityfor the WR, flash alerts, rulings as needed. the > other GM's provided > support/backup as needed but could play countries. > > The reason this was good, was the GM had no country to post for, > this > person had all the time to work on a WR or give a ruling. > > To me that would be a good idea especially with the WR issues that > have > been cropping up. > > I'd like to suggest it be something we look in to again. The NPC GM: Good idea. I'd go for it instantly. But we have very few players as it stands, and that one person taken out of play would be a lot bigger loss in such a circumstance. If we were bigger, I'd agree with it. But right now, I think we're too small. From ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 23:35:56 2007 From: ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com (Dan Garcia) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <914051.81393.qm@web60417.mail.yahoo.com> > That being said, we need to keep the WR, as is I think. I know, I was all > for abandoning it, but I honestly don't see any other way of evaluating > actions. This being said, I don't think we need things to be as detailed as we > normally are. Any elaboration can be made OOC as to what the GM's intentions > were. I really only have one comment, which is getting things OOC from the GMs needs to be OOC from *all* the GMs, so that we don't go all Fort Sumter and all. :) That's perhaps the one major benefit of the WR: it's something that all the GMs sign off on and (perhaps grudgingly :) ) agree to as game canon, and it's written (electronically) down for all to see. Danny From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Tue Aug 21 23:55:45 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:55:45 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now In-Reply-To: <914051.81393.qm@web60417.mail.yahoo.com> References: <914051.81393.qm@web60417.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Garcia Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now To: war_ooc at esteroic.com > I really only have one comment, which is getting things OOC from > the GMs needs to be OOC from > *all* the GMs, so that we don't go all Fort Sumter and all. :) > That's perhaps the one major > benefit of the WR: it's something that all the GMs sign off on > and (perhaps grudgingly :) ) agree > to as game canon, and it's written (electronically) down for all > to see. Dan is right, more than he realizes, I think. That's an inescapable problem with multiple GMs who have never met IRL and don't actually talk much: We're bound to disagree, often dramatically, about things, and having everybody on the same page is - essential-. Which the WRs do. Usually by bashing heads together, granted. John From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Wed Aug 22 09:55:15 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:55:15 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] We got a deadline! ...And some housekeeping stuff. Message-ID: I'll say this: I've liked the discussion we're having; please, keep it going. Now then. We will be working on a WR this weekend. If you want anything in it that isn't posted, plan on telling us by FRIDAY NIGHT at 8PM EDT. I'm going to nudge those participating in the Beijing conference to please, if you can, wrap it up and have it in by the time we start the WR? Some quick housekeeping stuff that's always good to mention: 1. All of your posts *really* need to be in plaintext. As in, written in notepad kinda plaintext. The mailserver does *not* format posts otherwise, and the results in the archives when someone sends to any of the lists using nonstandard, nonplaintext formatting really does not look pretty. 2. There's something of a limit to the size of a post that will go through, from what I recall. Not being able to remember what that limit is (Jared, if you're alive out there, could you tell me if there is or isn't one?), I would suggest that 20-25 kb is a good point. If your post is larger than that, split it up into 20kb pieces. This is especially important for big JPs. (Even if Jared (our listserv owner) says there isn't one, as a matter of readability: Don't be afraid to split big posts into multi-part postings.) 3. In case anyone wonders, my rule as Welcome Wagon Guy is that an application "expires" after one week. As in, if I am working with someone and I don't hear from them for one week, I forget about em. *Every time* we've seen applications fall through, it's because people don't get back to me for weeks, if at all. From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Mon Aug 27 14:55:38 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:55:38 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] About that WR Message-ID: Okay, here's the situation: Me, Chris, and Ian are all working on it. Here's my count of who has posted: US Russia (no WR section needed) Canada China Japan I know that Ian, Mike, and Chris are all working on the Beijing Conference. My gut instinct is to hold the WR until *after* that is out. John From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Mon Aug 27 22:50:45 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:50:45 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] Okay...Week's extension Message-ID: Yeah. I am told by my fellow GMs that... The Beijing Conference will take a while. *gives the participants big begging puppydog eyes* Sad, because the WR is waiting on it. But there's also other thins up. So we'll take another shot at the WR *next* weekend. In short, you all have a week to get your posts in. And you have -no- excuse not to post if you ain't since the last WR. John From pentaj2 at Scranton.edu Wed Aug 29 15:57:55 2007 From: pentaj2 at Scranton.edu (pentaj2 at Scranton.edu) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:57:55 -0400 Subject: [War_ooc] US Dramatis Personae Message-ID: A brief, brief thing I've been meaning to do for a while now - may as well do it now, post it here for everybody's reference. Including, and perhaps especially, my own. A cast list, if you will, for the US in WAR. Not exhaustive, meant to cover only already-introduced characters. The First Family: John Williams - 45th President of the United States Kayleigh Williams - First Lady of the United States (played by Kay, when she feels like it - I'm assuming she still reads what comes in from WAR.:)) Akela - German Shepherd puppy Gizmo - Soft-coated Wheaten Terrier puppy --- The Cabinet and associated persons: Bob Stevens - Vice President of the United States Ambassador Christopher Hill - Secretary of State Julius Abbot - Secretary of Defense, known as 'Piper' to close friends and family (NB: NOT in succession to Presidency) Calli Abbot - Wife of SECDEF Alexander Abbot - Age 4; SECDEF's eldest son. "Alex" Timotheos Abbot - "Tim", age 2.5. SECDEF's youngest son. Nicholas Manfredi - Director of National Intelligence Dr. William Nolan, MD, PhD - Presidential Science Advisor Larry Harris - Attorney General Lucas Maxwell - Director, FBI Robert Mendillo - Secretary of the Treasury --- Military folks: Edmund Giambastiani - Admiral, USN. Chairman, JCS. (IRL the Vice- Chairman, he was shuffled off to retirement along with Peter Pace after we'd already crossed POD, as he was not selected for Chairman) --- Congressional leaders and similar: Rep. Steven McCarty - Republican, Speaker of the House Rep. Tom Marshall - Democrat, House Minority Leader Sen. Ted Stevens - R-Alaska, Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Bob Martin - Democrat, Senate Minority Leader --- Diplomats: Amb. James Taylor - US Ambassador to the Court of St. James (US Ambassador to the UK) Amb. David Rogers - Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations This list will be added to as time goes on, I figure.