From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 00:26:53 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:26:53 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906202126u421a5e6bg2e4c97d09276179@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all.

I must admit, I'm not sure who all is still subscribed to this list, or what
everybody's gotten up to since WAR died.

Something got me curious, I dunno why.

I've heard mutterings from here and there about restarting WAR and getting
to playing again.

My personal thought: If people want to, woohoo, why not? It was great fun
before it descended into sniping, something I think everybody around at the
end shares some blame in.

I'll happily help with brainstorming, scenario setup, rules and structure
design, GMing, and newbie-handling. To restart WAR though, we'd need someone
who could handle the web stuff, who could advertise and get newbies, who
could do our artistic needs for advertising or the website...all skills I
don't have.

Or maybe there isn't that interest. Which is okay.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/ab7cb0a1/attachment.html 

From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 00:31:53 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:31:53 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906202126u421a5e6bg2e4c97d09276179@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906202126u421a5e6bg2e4c97d09276179@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3DB7B9.6020602@aol.com>

Oh what the hell I'm always up for the amusement... I'm in.


From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 00:33:24 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:33:24 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
In-Reply-To: <4A3DB7B9.6020602@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906202126u421a5e6bg2e4c97d09276179@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3DB7B9.6020602@aol.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906202133s44079cb3p1fce97f6ad0a8538@mail.gmail.com>

Funny that you send that minutes before I log on.  I'm down too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090620/15f981ff/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 00:58:57 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:58:57 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
In-Reply-To: <763946e70906202133s44079cb3p1fce97f6ad0a8538@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906202126u421a5e6bg2e4c97d09276179@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3DB7B9.6020602@aol.com>
	<763946e70906202133s44079cb3p1fce97f6ad0a8538@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906202158m25fece34v4ce3060ee7792ce1@mail.gmail.com>

Since there are a few biting, plus some nibbles over AIM....

I want to see how many people are interested first-off. Last time taught me
we need about 6-8 active people to have a fully-functioning WAR; Below 6,
the game felt lifeless and entered its death spiral of inactivity.

8 sounds huge, but I'm including the GM and any AGMs (confining the term
solely to if you're responsible for in-game stuff) in the total.

Feel free to pitch it to friends, family, etc. though this time I think it's
agreed we should be especially cautious (no offense to anyone involved) in
inviting GFs/BFs to join up. They might be able to handle it, but it also
might be a bit much to ask people to set aside feelings like that, when
setting aside ones feelings and having a thick skin is fairly essential for
WAR.

John
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Dylan de Valk <dylandv at gmail.com> wrote:

> Funny that you send that minutes before I log on.  I'm down too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/02562a2b/attachment.html 

From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun 21 01:03:21 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
Message-ID: <30014.53128.qm@web39102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hey guys,
I'm still here, but I don't think I'll return if WAR reboots. It was a bit too hard for me, and I've got other sims on the go.
Thanks
Daniel,?formerly?playing Australia


      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090620/e8195845/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 02:40:17 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:40:17 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
In-Reply-To: <30014.53128.qm@web39102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <30014.53128.qm@web39102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906202340m7b8bd6devb5e7f8ae739518e7@mail.gmail.com>

Really?  I really liked your style.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I'm still here, but I don't think I'll return if WAR reboots. It was a bit
> too hard for me, and I've got other sims on the go.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel, formerly playing Australia
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/mobile/tagline/*http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090620/be427af3/attachment.html 

From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun 21 02:48:15 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
Message-ID: <681790.23754.qm@web39106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Aww, thanks, hehe. It was just a bit hard, Australia's such a boring country (I can say that, I live there!), everything consists of following either the US, or China :p I'll think about it :D


      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090620/56fe22d1/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 08:36:25 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:06:25 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Ping. Ping.
In-Reply-To: <681790.23754.qm@web39106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <681790.23754.qm@web39106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906210536k2c1c6e7fnf298a9caef48b0e3@mail.gmail.com>

I'm around, and with a bit more free time since I graduated. I might
be able to come back, no promises.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Daniel
Sanderson<dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Aww, thanks, hehe. It was just a bit hard, Australia's such a boring country
> (I can say that, I live there!), everything consists of following either the
> US, or China :p I'll think about it :D
>
> ________________________________
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how.
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Sun Jun 21 09:20:36 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:20:36 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] Reboot.
Message-ID: <08B06FBD6BD444428932B2E3732E1439@iainw>

Hi guys,

 

I would also be interested in restarting, at lest to see how things go.

 

Iain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/92b91b3e/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 11:48:58 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:48:58 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>

About this whole resurrection of WAR thingy.

I have confirmed:

Me
Buckley
Chris
Dylan
Iain

With Mike Downey as a maybe, it sounds like?

5. 6 if we count Mike.

Awfully small, but hopefully people can advertise? I know from last time
that I suck at that.

So, I'm going to lay out some stuff here.

First off, there are OOC tasks we need to know someone is doing. Not think
someone else is doing, but *absolutely know* that someone is doing them.
They're vital to the success of any resurrection. My neurotic
attempting-to-be-Atlas nature means I'd try to do all of these myself,
except that I suck at these tasks, said after having attempted to do them
all (except art, you don't want to see me doing art...ever...) for WAR last
time. I'm *interested* in about half of these, but the very reason I'm
putting these up here is because I suck and therefore should really not do
them.

What are they? Well, I'll set them out, each as a task area someone can
volunteer for, along with any potential issues/problems/whatnot that I see.
---
Web stuff - WAR's historic bane, along with advertising. Buckley suggested a
Wiki as our website - an excellent idea, but vandals and spam would be a
problem. A second question would be hosting - unless someone can rustle up
free hosting for such a Wiki (or a website), it'll take *real money*.:(
--
Advertising: Finding places to advertise is only part of the problem.
Writing a good ad is demonically hard - we're a niche thing no matter what
kind of setting we go for, but we still need new people. I mentioned last
night that I saw 6-8 people as a minimum size. Even if we have that now, we
still need to advertise - just so that we have enough people for when people
inevitably take a break/quit/get hit by a bus.

I will, for the record, continue my role as newbie-handler once they reach
us. I actually *like* doing that work, even as I see how others dislike it.

It might be a good thing if, somehow, we advertise off-web, maybe by means
of fliers and stuff?
--
Graphics and Art: Sort of in conjunction with the first two issues, we need
someone artsy who can do stuff like banner ads.
---

Next up:

Stuff we need to decide on by consensus. Not, dear God, by vote...by
consensus, because they're the building blocks. If we can't come to a
consensus on these, we'll never get anywhere with implementation.
***
First off, Setting.

If we're looking at everything, we may as well look at setting.

Personally, I've heard a bunch of ideas, from Napoleoonic-era WAR to Space
WAR. They all strike me as potentially fun in different ways.

Even for Modern or Near-future WAR, we run into the questions of work
required and just how much we can expect out of any playerbase in terms of
compelling, IC writing and decisionmaking.

I'm going to throw out my opinions as far as the general categories.
---
Historical WAR: Could be set in the Napoleonic era, the Renaissance, the
Medieval age, whenever. Specific work required really depends on the
specific era chosen, but in any event requires a *lot* of front-end
historical research. May, in truth, require some knowledge of languages
other than English in order to accomplish that research.

Quality of writing and immersion is my biggest question, though: In my
not-really-humble opinion, WAR was at its best when it was *immersive*. This
sometimes meant being tightly-researched, but just as often happened when we
managed to latch onto something and breathe in the atmosphere, even if not
all the details worked. Often it was a mix of the two: I remember really
being immersed in my character(s) when me and Chris were writing the
US-China summit. Tightly-researched, yes, but also hugely because of
atmosphere. Chris played his character to the hilt, and I honestly felt like
Williams throughout that whole situation.

Historical writing, in that sense, is *hard*. It's devilishly hard not to
play someone with modern attitudes and knowledge, just dressed up in funny
clothes. And yet if we don't pull it off, if we don't pull off all writing
characters with period attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, etc, it all risks
falling flat, leaving WAR coming off as a giant game of Risk.
---
Modern WAR: One variant of what I will call "WAR Classic", this is the older
version. Setting is Now, not the near-future. Saves us from thinking about
times, dates, and all that stuff, but risks are what Buckley usefully called
having too much information, and the problem of diverging so much from
reality, either immediately or over time, as to be inaccessible to newbies,
prompting restarts.

Near-future WAR: The other variant, this is what I tried to do with the 2013
scenario. Setting is roughly close to the present, but advanced ahead a few
years - 2013 was initially picked semi-arbitrarily, because it conveniently
meant a new US Presidential term and it advanced us 6ish years. The
information problem remains to an extent, as does the divergence issue...In
the case of the original 2013 scenario, I think we got lapped by reality
from behind - I certainly, when writing in 2007, never expected an Obama
Presidency. Or the recession.

Work required? Mostly data-gathering and brainstorming, like what we're
familiar with. It's still significant, but perhaps not as much as the
historical or sci-fi variants. Quality of writing and decisionmaking: Well,
WAR has had its bright and shining moments up til now, but it's also had
its...Well, it's also had moments better left unmentioned because they were
nothing resembling quality, agreed? We can almost all pull out examples from
nearly 10 years of play, let's not get started. That said, there seems to be
a lower "barrier to entry" with WAR Classic (in either version) than I would
expect in Historical or Sci-fi versions. There isn't the issue of "attitude
gap", at least not to the same extent.
---
Sci-fi versions of WAR:

WAR in Spaaaaaaaace! (There, got it out of my system.:)) Or Cyberpunk WAR,
or whatever. Requires a shitload of work in terms of world-building. Some
can be accomplished in-play, but a lot would need to be accomplished before
we ever got off the ground.

Quality of writing and decisionmaking can pose as much problems here as with
Historical WAR, for much the same reasons.
***

Are there any other setting possibilities I've left out?

Anyhow...Yeah.

One thing this does set out for me is What WAR Is. Not in a setting way, but
in a general "mission-statement-y" way. You may not agree with everything
written, but I'm calling things as I see them. Including this really because
it's been on my mind.
---
WAR (which may or may not need a renaming) is a game, yes. It cannot hope to
be a simulation, even when it has simulation characteristics, and even
though WAR has classically been an excellent teacher of politics and
international affairs. Not a wargame, though it does include war, as seen
tactically, operationally, and strategically (and from a grand strategy
perspective). In many cases, much of the fun comes from desperately trying
to -avoid- the general war that will in many cases end the game. It is not,
strictly, a roleplaying game in the conventional sense. It may include RPG
devices - it could even include stats and things like that if players felt
so inclined. It does come imbued with a heavy dose of roleplay, everything
from action posts (combat and similar RP) to diplomacy to strictly social
scenes and character development, and players tend to play their roles, on
the best days, very immersively, like the best roleplayers.

WAR is as much the OOC surroundings as the actual play - the reality is that
the game only really works when players are active on an out-of-character
basis with other players, whether that be through instant messenger chatter,
IM chats of multiple players, or chatter on the OOC list. WAR players are
opinionated, yes; play often requires a thick skin, and the OOC
conversations and debates and such do as well. At the same time, though, WAR
is best played with the game full-contact, but with the players behind the
characters still able to be friends...of sorts, anyway. We may never meet in
real life to drink beers together, but the idea is that the game shouldn't
prevent the bonds of friendship forming such that we could if we wanted to,
or even if we just ran into each other and somehow figured out the
connection. The moment IC activity causes OOC sniping (or worse), we've done
something wrong. Not just one of us, but all of us. Just because we can ICly
be at each other's throats gives no excuse for that to carry over into OOC
terms.

WAR is not meant to be educational: We play for fun, not as a requirement
for any course. Telling a good story may occasionally beat out realism,
though (particularly in a modern or historical setting) we've found realism
to be extremely helpful to our endeavors. Nonetheless, WAR *has the
possibility* to teach about many things - and players should "come to the
table" willing to learn from play, both about the subjects at hand and stuff
not necessarily apparent. WAR can teach the attentive player much about its
subjects through the activity of play, and about many things not strictly
within our remit, whether that be human behavior (broadly speaking) or any
number of other things. Including, though this is not fully advisable, about
oneself. Or ar least certain aspects thereof.

WAR is about writing, though it is more competitive than most MUSHes,
MOOs, or most freeform RP of other types. We compete, and compete hard, but
there is no way to "win" at WAR - and trying to win like WAR is any other
game is not taken well. We compete in order to write a fun story -
ultimately a cooperative endeavor. This story may, or may not, have an end.
We're not sure. Finding out is part of the adventure.
***

So, summary of all this babble:

Go back and read my babble, dammit. You win no points by skipping to the
end.

We need people to volunteer for the OOC tasks set out above - multiple
people can do a single task, but cooperating in such cases seems like a good
idea, and in any case these need to be done.

If for some reason they can't be done, well...then we're a bit stuck, and
I'd be open to ideas on how to navigate out of the stuckness.

Setting, like I said, should really be decided by consensus - and no, don't
just go "I'll do what everybody else wants" and be passive-aggressive.
Silence in this case does not equal consent.

Regardless of whatever else, I'm kinda sorta claiming "ownership" of WAR,
insofar as that means -anything- (It doesn't, except that I might break tie
votes or something if we ever need to vote on stuff), because I basically
had both the idea to restart WAR and to actually dig out this list to use
for such a purpose.

Let's decide the setting of WAR, all that good stuff, then we'll figure out
GM for play purposes.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/69312acd/attachment-0001.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 14:39:32 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:39:32 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I'm down as well. However, I'd like to see some *HARD* rules in place  
-- it seemed a little loosey-goosey last time.

-- Lee

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> About this whole resurrection of WAR thingy.
>
> I have confirmed:
>
> Me
> Buckley
> Chris
> Dylan
> Iain
>
> With Mike Downey as a maybe, it sounds like?
>
> 5. 6 if we count Mike.
>
> Awfully small, but hopefully people can advertise? I know from last time
> that I suck at that.
>
> So, I'm going to lay out some stuff here.
>
> First off, there are OOC tasks we need to know someone is doing. Not think
> someone else is doing, but *absolutely know* that someone is doing them.
> They're vital to the success of any resurrection. My neurotic
> attempting-to-be-Atlas nature means I'd try to do all of these myself,
> except that I suck at these tasks, said after having attempted to do them
> all (except art, you don't want to see me doing art...ever...) for WAR last
> time. I'm *interested* in about half of these, but the very reason I'm
> putting these up here is because I suck and therefore should really not do
> them.
>
> What are they? Well, I'll set them out, each as a task area someone can
> volunteer for, along with any potential issues/problems/whatnot that I see.
> ---
> Web stuff - WAR's historic bane, along with advertising. Buckley suggested a
> Wiki as our website - an excellent idea, but vandals and spam would be a
> problem. A second question would be hosting - unless someone can rustle up
> free hosting for such a Wiki (or a website), it'll take *real money*.:(
> --
> Advertising: Finding places to advertise is only part of the problem.
> Writing a good ad is demonically hard - we're a niche thing no matter what
> kind of setting we go for, but we still need new people. I mentioned last
> night that I saw 6-8 people as a minimum size. Even if we have that now, we
> still need to advertise - just so that we have enough people for when people
> inevitably take a break/quit/get hit by a bus.
>
> I will, for the record, continue my role as newbie-handler once they reach
> us. I actually *like* doing that work, even as I see how others dislike it.
>
> It might be a good thing if, somehow, we advertise off-web, maybe by means
> of fliers and stuff?
> --
> Graphics and Art: Sort of in conjunction with the first two issues, we need
> someone artsy who can do stuff like banner ads.
> ---
>
> Next up:
>
> Stuff we need to decide on by consensus. Not, dear God, by vote...by
> consensus, because they're the building blocks. If we can't come to a
> consensus on these, we'll never get anywhere with implementation.
> ***
> First off, Setting.
>
> If we're looking at everything, we may as well look at setting.
>
> Personally, I've heard a bunch of ideas, from Napoleoonic-era WAR to Space
> WAR. They all strike me as potentially fun in different ways.
>
> Even for Modern or Near-future WAR, we run into the questions of work
> required and just how much we can expect out of any playerbase in terms of
> compelling, IC writing and decisionmaking.
>
> I'm going to throw out my opinions as far as the general categories.
> ---
> Historical WAR: Could be set in the Napoleonic era, the Renaissance, the
> Medieval age, whenever. Specific work required really depends on the
> specific era chosen, but in any event requires a *lot* of front-end
> historical research. May, in truth, require some knowledge of languages
> other than English in order to accomplish that research.
>
> Quality of writing and immersion is my biggest question, though: In my
> not-really-humble opinion, WAR was at its best when it was *immersive*. This
> sometimes meant being tightly-researched, but just as often happened when we
> managed to latch onto something and breathe in the atmosphere, even if not
> all the details worked. Often it was a mix of the two: I remember really
> being immersed in my character(s) when me and Chris were writing the
> US-China summit. Tightly-researched, yes, but also hugely because of
> atmosphere. Chris played his character to the hilt, and I honestly felt like
> Williams throughout that whole situation.
>
> Historical writing, in that sense, is *hard*. It's devilishly hard not to
> play someone with modern attitudes and knowledge, just dressed up in funny
> clothes. And yet if we don't pull it off, if we don't pull off all writing
> characters with period attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, etc, it all risks
> falling flat, leaving WAR coming off as a giant game of Risk.
> ---
> Modern WAR: One variant of what I will call "WAR Classic", this is the older
> version. Setting is Now, not the near-future. Saves us from thinking about
> times, dates, and all that stuff, but risks are what Buckley usefully called
> having too much information, and the problem of diverging so much from
> reality, either immediately or over time, as to be inaccessible to newbies,
> prompting restarts.
>
> Near-future WAR: The other variant, this is what I tried to do with the 2013
> scenario. Setting is roughly close to the present, but advanced ahead a few
> years - 2013 was initially picked semi-arbitrarily, because it conveniently
> meant a new US Presidential term and it advanced us 6ish years. The
> information problem remains to an extent, as does the divergence issue...In
> the case of the original 2013 scenario, I think we got lapped by reality
> from behind - I certainly, when writing in 2007, never expected an Obama
> Presidency. Or the recession.
>
> Work required? Mostly data-gathering and brainstorming, like what we're
> familiar with. It's still significant, but perhaps not as much as the
> historical or sci-fi variants. Quality of writing and decisionmaking: Well,
> WAR has had its bright and shining moments up til now, but it's also had
> its...Well, it's also had moments better left unmentioned because they were
> nothing resembling quality, agreed? We can almost all pull out examples from
> nearly 10 years of play, let's not get started. That said, there seems to be
> a lower "barrier to entry" with WAR Classic (in either version) than I would
> expect in Historical or Sci-fi versions. There isn't the issue of "attitude
> gap", at least not to the same extent.
> ---
> Sci-fi versions of WAR:
>
> WAR in Spaaaaaaaace! (There, got it out of my system.:)) Or Cyberpunk WAR,
> or whatever. Requires a shitload of work in terms of world-building. Some
> can be accomplished in-play, but a lot would need to be accomplished before
> we ever got off the ground.
>
> Quality of writing and decisionmaking can pose as much problems here as with
> Historical WAR, for much the same reasons.
> ***
>
> Are there any other setting possibilities I've left out?
>
> Anyhow...Yeah.
>
> One thing this does set out for me is What WAR Is. Not in a setting way, but
> in a general "mission-statement-y" way. You may not agree with everything
> written, but I'm calling things as I see them. Including this really because
> it's been on my mind.
> ---
> WAR (which may or may not need a renaming) is a game, yes. It cannot hope to
> be a simulation, even when it has simulation characteristics, and even
> though WAR has classically been an excellent teacher of politics and
> international affairs. Not a wargame, though it does include war, as seen
> tactically, operationally, and strategically (and from a grand strategy
> perspective). In many cases, much of the fun comes from desperately trying
> to -avoid- the general war that will in many cases end the game. It is not,
> strictly, a roleplaying game in the conventional sense. It may include RPG
> devices - it could even include stats and things like that if players felt
> so inclined. It does come imbued with a heavy dose of roleplay, everything
> from action posts (combat and similar RP) to diplomacy to strictly social
> scenes and character development, and players tend to play their roles, on
> the best days, very immersively, like the best roleplayers.
>
> WAR is as much the OOC surroundings as the actual play - the reality is that
> the game only really works when players are active on an out-of-character
> basis with other players, whether that be through instant messenger chatter,
> IM chats of multiple players, or chatter on the OOC list. WAR players are
> opinionated, yes; play often requires a thick skin, and the OOC
> conversations and debates and such do as well. At the same time, though, WAR
> is best played with the game full-contact, but with the players behind the
> characters still able to be friends...of sorts, anyway. We may never meet in
> real life to drink beers together, but the idea is that the game shouldn't
> prevent the bonds of friendship forming such that we could if we wanted to,
> or even if we just ran into each other and somehow figured out the
> connection. The moment IC activity causes OOC sniping (or worse), we've done
> something wrong. Not just one of us, but all of us. Just because we can ICly
> be at each other's throats gives no excuse for that to carry over into OOC
> terms.
>
> WAR is not meant to be educational: We play for fun, not as a requirement
> for any course. Telling a good story may occasionally beat out realism,
> though (particularly in a modern or historical setting) we've found realism
> to be extremely helpful to our endeavors. Nonetheless, WAR *has the
> possibility* to teach about many things - and players should "come to the
> table" willing to learn from play, both about the subjects at hand and stuff
> not necessarily apparent. WAR can teach the attentive player much about its
> subjects through the activity of play, and about many things not strictly
> within our remit, whether that be human behavior (broadly speaking) or any
> number of other things. Including, though this is not fully advisable, about
> oneself. Or ar least certain aspects thereof.
>
> WAR is about writing, though it is more competitive than most MUSHes,
> MOOs, or most freeform RP of other types. We compete, and compete hard, but
> there is no way to "win" at WAR - and trying to win like WAR is any other
> game is not taken well. We compete in order to write a fun story -
> ultimately a cooperative endeavor. This story may, or may not, have an end.
> We're not sure. Finding out is part of the adventure.
> ***
>
> So, summary of all this babble:
>
> Go back and read my babble, dammit. You win no points by skipping to the
> end.
>
> We need people to volunteer for the OOC tasks set out above - multiple
> people can do a single task, but cooperating in such cases seems like a good
> idea, and in any case these need to be done.
>
> If for some reason they can't be done, well...then we're a bit stuck, and
> I'd be open to ideas on how to navigate out of the stuckness.
>
> Setting, like I said, should really be decided by consensus - and no, don't
> just go "I'll do what everybody else wants" and be passive-aggressive.
> Silence in this case does not equal consent.
>
> Regardless of whatever else, I'm kinda sorta claiming "ownership" of WAR,
> insofar as that means -anything- (It doesn't, except that I might break tie
> votes or something if we ever need to vote on stuff), because I basically
> had both the idea to restart WAR and to actually dig out this list to use
> for such a purpose.
>
> Let's decide the setting of WAR, all that good stuff, then we'll figure out
> GM for play purposes.
>
> John
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 15:09:13 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:09:13 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>

As I can sense a rabbithole looming...Let's set that argument aside til we
determine setting? Please?

Some settings lend themselves more naturally to hard rules (crunchiness and
stats if I'm reading you right, Lee) than others; keep in mind that the goal
of WAR, at least as I see it, in this incarnation is more story than
anything else. If we do a modern setting, there are rules we've learned from
experience; if we do a historical setting, much of that setting's nature
will determine the rules; if we do a sci-fi/futuristic setting, chances are
certain rules will basically present themselves as we do the world-building.
Oh, and for the record: While I am not opposed to using licensed settings
(settings from tv, rpgs, books, etc), they do come with certain
complications. IE, Pern (as if anybody really wants to play WAR in a fantasy
setting? Personally, I'd rather not) is right out because Anne McCaffrey's
estate would likely find us and kill us even if we tried to ask for
permission. And despite my love for Ender's Game, I would resist doing a
game set in any of Orson Scott Card's universes, both because I don't think
they'd fit WAR very well...and because I think the discussions to let us use
his intellectual property would be painful.

John

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I'm down as well. However, I'd like to see some *HARD* rules in place
> -- it seemed a little loosey-goosey last time.
>
> -- Lee
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/f8af2bc6/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 15:26:53 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:26:53 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I agree that the point of WAR is to keep the story rumbling along, but  
I think that we need to put some structure in place to at least keep  
it moving along and sustainable enough that this incarnation does not  
end abruptly.

In terms of setting, I'm not terribly interested in doing something  
that's NOT realistic... That being said, I'd like to throw in my 2  
cents in terms of guideline.

I'm fine with doing something historical, but I think that it would a  
require a rule set to buck down the gameplay so that shit doesn't get  
crazy.

Similarly, if we do something sci-fi/futuristic, we'd want to  
implement a rule set that DOES NOT buck down the gameplay so that  
players don't get lost. Ideally, something in Kardashev k = 2 to 3  
land (If we were to do k = 1, we might as well keep the game here on  
Earth in the early 2000s).

Anyway, in summary, I'd be against using a licensed setting. Further,  
any rule sets that get developed should be sufficiently behind the  
scenes so that it doesn't interfere with gameplay, but are still  
hard-enforceable that it keeps gameplay running. One corollary of this  
might be that wiser decisions may come out of players that don't RP,  
and that their societies may progress regardless, but I'm sure that  
this can be ironed out in developing a rule set.

Cheers
-- Lee

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> As I can sense a rabbithole looming...Let's set that argument aside til we
> determine setting? Please?
>
> Some settings lend themselves more naturally to hard rules (crunchiness and
> stats if I'm reading you right, Lee) than others; keep in mind that the goal
> of WAR, at least as I see it, in this incarnation is more story than
> anything else. If we do a modern setting, there are rules we've learned from
> experience; if we do a historical setting, much of that setting's nature
> will determine the rules; if we do a sci-fi/futuristic setting, chances are
> certain rules will basically present themselves as we do the world-building.
> Oh, and for the record: While I am not opposed to using licensed settings
> (settings from tv, rpgs, books, etc), they do come with certain
> complications. IE, Pern (as if anybody really wants to play WAR in a fantasy
> setting? Personally, I'd rather not) is right out because Anne McCaffrey's
> estate would likely find us and kill us even if we tried to ask for
> permission. And despite my love for Ender's Game, I would resist doing a
> game set in any of Orson Scott Card's universes, both because I don't think
> they'd fit WAR very well...and because I think the discussions to let us use
> his intellectual property would be painful.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'm down as well. However, I'd like to see some *HARD* rules in place
>> -- it seemed a little loosey-goosey last time.
>>
>> -- Lee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>





From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:13:14 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:43:14 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>

I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
like that out there?

Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
shoulders and remember it is AU.

I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
are backed with good writing.


From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 16:22:18 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:22:18 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3E967A.6010605@aol.com>

In other words Post quality=greater chance of success.....



From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:24:46 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:54:46 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <4A3E967A.6010605@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3E967A.6010605@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211324g45f58cecte67233d2f03b48e0@mail.gmail.com>

Pretty much. But I would have objections to Central African railgun
tanks no matter how well-written it is........

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Patrick B<pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
> In other words Post quality=greater chance of success.....
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 16:28:42 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:28:42 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211324g45f58cecte67233d2f03b48e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<4A3E967A.6010605@aol.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211324g45f58cecte67233d2f03b48e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3E97FA.9010804@aol.com>

and if I see Jack Ryan as POTUS Ebola monkeys will FLY


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:29:31 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:29:31 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
> like that out there?


Weirdly, no, I don't think so. Not to my knowledge anyway.


>
> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>
And hope nothing too seemingly-unlikely happens.:)


>
> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
> are backed with good writing.


We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed only
WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/bf088eb6/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:31:33 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:31:33 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly  
by-the-numbers game would make it boring.

HOWEVER

I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in  
place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will  
need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.  
I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but  
if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game  
should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,  
the game SHOULD be able to support itself.

To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need  
some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during  
down time, and make sure things make sense.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
> like that out there?
>
> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>
> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
> are backed with good writing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:33:10 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:33:10 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <4A3E97FA.9010804@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3E967A.6010605@aol.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211324g45f58cecte67233d2f03b48e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3E97FA.9010804@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211333g1b7120f9t331f1e3ec5d679a3@mail.gmail.com>

Ahem, I control the animal kingdom thanks.:)

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:

> and if I see Jack Ryan as POTUS Ebola monkeys will FLY
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/ba53f916/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:35:23 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:05:23 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>

> We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
> find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed only
> WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
> that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.

I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:37:34 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:37:34 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Can I know why you guys are so AGAINST just codifying this so that we  
understand what is fair and what is not and then letting the GM make  
the judgement calls based on that?

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

>> We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
>> find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed only
>> WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
>> that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.
>
> I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
> worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
> writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
> down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
> be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
> justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Sun Jun 21 16:38:04 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:38:04 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>

For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):

I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to play Gordon
Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...

Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
of players/writers.

And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win over complete
realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.

Iain

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly  
by-the-numbers game would make it boring.

HOWEVER

I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in  
place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will  
need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.  
I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but  
if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game  
should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,  
the game SHOULD be able to support itself.

To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need  
some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during  
down time, and make sure things make sense.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
> like that out there?
>
> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>
> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
> are backed with good writing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>




_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:38:45 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:08:45 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211338y41980103ucaf8d9211e26bfdd@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:07 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Can I know why you guys are so AGAINST just codifying this so that we
> understand what is fair and what is not and then letting the GM make
> the judgement calls based on that?

I'm not against codifying, but I'm just wondering in what manner we
should go about doing it.


From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Sun Jun 21 16:40:36 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:40:36 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com><ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com><6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6284D5ED7E244F5C8120E3956B745BA7@iainw>

I'm just getting too anarchist and put-the-faith-in-the-people in my old age
I think. Which is unfortunate given I'm meant to be playing a political game
:S lol

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
Sent: 21 June 2009 21:38
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

Can I know why you guys are so AGAINST just codifying this so that we  
understand what is fair and what is not and then letting the GM make  
the judgement calls based on that?

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

>> We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
>> find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed
only
>> WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
>> that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.
>
> I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
> worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
> writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
> down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
> be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
> justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>




_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 16:39:36 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:39:36 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163734.kstxf6u95b4gg0kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4A3E9A88.8070709@aol.com>

Exactly,

I mean I know when I was GM I used what I called the crack test, 
basically if I had to ask were you smoking crack when you thought this 
up it failed no matter how good the writing...


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:41:55 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:11:55 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211341y3f1d2059jacb5e47689f0112d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
> of players/writers.

Yes, guidelines. That is the word I've been trying to best descrinbe
it. I am afraid hard coding (and I am fully prepared to be proven
wrong on this) would make it too much of a numbers game and not about
creative writing. Maybe all of us should try and iron out a defenition
of what we consider 'decent, near-realistic' enough to qualify as
acceptable?


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:46:00 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:46:00 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
Message-ID: <20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>

My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down  
to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.

At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against  
some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale  
in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,  
right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning  
environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a  
reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be  
determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in  
place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.

And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)

Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:

> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>
> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to play Gordon
> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>
> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
> of players/writers.
>
> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win over complete
> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>
> Iain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>
> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>
> HOWEVER
>
> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>
> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>> like that out there?
>>
>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>
>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>> are backed with good writing.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:50:34 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:50:34 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> > We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
> > find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed
> only
> > WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
> > that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.
>
> I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
> worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
> writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
> down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
> be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
> justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"


And when the GM is stressed, harrassed, off their meds, etc.?

Well, IMHO, them's the breaks of WAR. Others may disagree, but my personal
opinion is that WAR needs very few hard-and-fast rules. ("No launching nukes
and making the game post-apocalyptic" being basically the key one.)

It might be *helped* by rules of thumb like "X numbers of troops takes Y
hours to move Z distance", but that's really just for the "Ahh wtf do you
mean I gotta decide all this at once?" moments.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/890f3b19/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:51:54 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:51:54 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211341y3f1d2059jacb5e47689f0112d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<6b6ab8a70906211341y3f1d2059jacb5e47689f0112d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621165154.w1jt60ahw0s8scs8@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Personally, I don't feel guidelines are strong enough to enforce  
proper gameplay. As soon as there's a disagreement amongst ourselves  
those guidelines may split into a variety of interpretations. IRL, the  
world doesn't stop running when there's a disagreement -- for that  
reason, I'd make an argument for defining a qualitative scale in terms  
of fiscal, legal, and political policy. Ie, if country A tries to do  
something that is far-protectionist in an economically liberal  
environment, well, people would be pissed off and it wouldn't work  
very well. Similarly, like if an administration decides to go to war  
with only 50% support. Shit would happen.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>> of players/writers.
>
> Yes, guidelines. That is the word I've been trying to best descrinbe
> it. I am afraid hard coding (and I am fully prepared to be proven
> wrong on this) would make it too much of a numbers game and not about
> creative writing. Maybe all of us should try and iron out a defenition
> of what we consider 'decent, near-realistic' enough to qualify as
> acceptable?
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Sun Jun 21 16:52:32 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:52:32 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com><20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca><3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CF14B035A3064336BC03854BED585422@iainw>

Damn, you shot me down before I could suggest Narnia!

I really abstain from any form of objective checks, this is an area that I
have little experience/knowledge in other than what I research to put into
the game. So I defer to those of you who perhaps know a bit more.

I will however, put forward the suggestion that we are all (more than!) able
to bring up when we find something realistic and maybe some sort of
consensus-finding once we're playing is the best check of all?

Or I'm talking poo again - I never can tell which ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
Sent: 21 June 2009 21:46
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down  
to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.

At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against  
some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale  
in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,  
right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning  
environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a  
reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be  
determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in  
place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.

And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)

Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:

> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>
> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out
of
> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to play
Gordon
> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not
have
> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>
> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it)
this
> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good
set
> of players/writers.
>
> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win over
complete
> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>
> Iain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com]
On
> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>
> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>
> HOWEVER
>
> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>
> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>> like that out there?
>>
>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>
>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>> are backed with good writing.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>




_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:52:53 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:52:53 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I agree with the bottom point.

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Michael Downey <
> michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
>> > find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed
>> only
>> > WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
>> > that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.
>>
>> I think that in this we simply use our judgment. We're all fairly
>> worldly and have a good understanding (I hope) of both quality
>> writing, history and modern politics. The GM(s) simply need to sit
>> down and critically think "How likely is this? How difficult would it
>> be to implement? Does the quality of writing and details provided
>> justify it working? Will allowing this push the envelope too far?"
>
>
> And when the GM is stressed, harrassed, off their meds, etc.?
>
> Well, IMHO, them's the breaks of WAR. Others may disagree, but my personal
> opinion is that WAR needs very few hard-and-fast rules. ("No launching nukes
> and making the game post-apocalyptic" being basically the key one.)
>
> It might be *helped* by rules of thumb like "X numbers of troops takes Y
> hours to move Z distance", but that's really just for the "Ahh wtf do you
> mean I gotta decide all this at once?" moments.
>
> John
>





From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:53:49 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:23:49 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>

It would have to be case by case, I would think.

1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?

2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?

3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)

For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>
> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>
> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>
> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>
>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>>
>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to play Gordon
>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>
>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>> of players/writers.
>>
>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win over complete
>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>
>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>
>> HOWEVER
>>
>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>
>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>
>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>> like that out there?
>>>
>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>
>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 16:55:23 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:55:23 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some  
things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> It would have to be case by case, I would think.
>
> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>
> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?
>
> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
> writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)
>
> For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
> possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
> unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
> system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
> health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
>> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>>
>> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
>> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
>> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
>> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
>> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
>> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
>> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
>> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>>
>> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>>
>> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>>
>>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>>>
>>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
>>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to   
>>> play Gordon
>>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
>>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I   
>>> admit it) this
>>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>>> of players/writers.
>>>
>>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win   
>>> over complete
>>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>
>>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER
>>>
>>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>>
>>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>>
>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>>> like that out there?
>>>>
>>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>>
>>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 16:56:27 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:26:27 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'

I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
needs to be expanded) start.


From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 16:57:29 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:57:29 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>

One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering 
out the small things.

Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for 
disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.

But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and 
too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...

So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement 
instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and 
how can we make it as simple as possible.

KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:00:39 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:30:39 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211400g73390a5cm31c260804e43966e@mail.gmail.com>

Lee is quite correct in that we do need to try and set some sort of
objective measure of what a 'decent' or 'quality' post is. Maybe a
written example of a good post and then an example of a bad post on
the same subject?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Patrick B<pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
> out the small things.
>
> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>
> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>
> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>
> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:02:09 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:02:09 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Fair enough.

I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to  
be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.

I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries  
fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and  
then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility  
that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being  
right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed  
by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain  
highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down  
to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).

I think that makes sense?

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>
> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
> needs to be expanded) start.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 17:05:14 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:05:14 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4A3EA08A.6020209@aol.com>

Since no one is listening to my points let me say this  Apples bunnies 
funyuns, goat porn and I like sheep.


From martellian at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:08:16 2009
From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:08:16 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DS7F5E8B6747EDA7922A5CCC6380@phx.gbl>

Hey al


From: John Penta 
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:09 PM
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com 
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...


As I can sense a rabbithole looming...Let's set that argument aside til we determine setting? Please?

Some settings lend themselves more naturally to hard rules (crunchiness and stats if I'm reading you right, Lee) than others; keep in mind that the goal of WAR, at least as I see it, in this incarnation is more story than anything else. If we do a modern setting, there are rules we've learned from experience; if we do a historical setting, much of that setting's nature will determine the rules; if we do a sci-fi/futuristic setting, chances are certain rules will basically present themselves as we do the world-building.

Oh, and for the record: While I am not opposed to using licensed settings (settings from tv, rpgs, books, etc), they do come with certain complications. IE, Pern (as if anybody really wants to play WAR in a fantasy setting? Personally, I'd rather not) is right out because Anne McCaffrey's estate would likely find us and kill us even if we tried to ask for permission. And despite my love for Ender's Game, I would resist doing a game set in any of Orson Scott Card's universes, both because I don't think they'd fit WAR very well...and because I think the discussions to let us use his intellectual property would be painful.

John

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

  I'm down as well. However, I'd like to see some *HARD* rules in place
  -- it seemed a little loosey-goosey last time.

  -- Lee


  _______________________________________________
  War_ooc mailing list
  War_ooc at esteroic.com
  http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/c8988cfe/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:11:35 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:11:35 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621171135.c3kfnvpy8g8884oo@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I like this -- I still say we should put this into some objective  
metric and rate how each decision would sit in the metric, and then  
base our decisions on that, but I think this is good regardless.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> It would have to be case by case, I would think.
>
> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>
> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?
>
> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
> writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)
>
> For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
> possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
> unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
> system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
> health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
>> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>>
>> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
>> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
>> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
>> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
>> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
>> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
>> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
>> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>>
>> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>>
>> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>>
>>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>>>
>>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
>>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to   
>>> play Gordon
>>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
>>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I   
>>> admit it) this
>>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>>> of players/writers.
>>>
>>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win   
>>> over complete
>>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>
>>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER
>>>
>>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>>
>>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>>
>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>>> like that out there?
>>>>
>>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>>
>>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From martellian at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:15:38 2009
From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:15:38 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com><20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca><3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw><20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com><20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>

Hey all count me in!

Now for my two cents. First, I am for near-future WAR, it's basically what I 
think of when I think of WAR and it's easy for people to understand getting 
into it. As to the codification debate, I like what Lee is saying, the point 
scale could be helpful in that it creates a baseline for people to orient 
their posts by and saves lots of research. That said I'd like to make the 
following suggestions. First, that government, population, and international 
support numbers are taken into account. ie the more popular your leader the 
more he can do etc. Also that we keep the 'crack test' and the idea that 
good writing can make up for a multitude of impossibilities, for example if 
you write a solid series of posts about how your leader gets the country to 
accept something a little out there, I think it should go through, 
especially if it moves the game along.

So in summary, I think the story of the game should be the primary focus 
(after all its what makes it fun) but we do need something either real world 
facts or the 1-10 scale to keep a common frame of reference for our posts.

--------------------------------------------------
From: <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:02 PM
To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

> Fair enough.
>
> I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to
> be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.
>
> I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries
> fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and
> then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility
> that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being
> right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed
> by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain
> highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down
> to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).
>
> I think that makes sense?
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>>
>> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
>> needs to be expanded) start.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> 


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:16:20 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:46:20 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621171135.c3kfnvpy8g8884oo@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621171135.c3kfnvpy8g8884oo@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211416o179d91f2h989917c5078b96ee@mail.gmail.com>

Your idea is logical and would make sense if we were more of a
military/combat sim (ironic given our title). But we are a creative
writing game, why burden ourselves with trying to quantify
political/military/economic levels of every country that is being
played? A logical, critical thinking approach seems more apt. Not to
say numbers aren't going to play a part (Zimbabwe's GDP obviously
doesn't allow for nuclear power plants to be constructed) but
assigning everything from 1 to 10 seems to be placing headaches on
John.

And yes Pat we are listing to you. Your point in KISS is very apt, and
I think that trying to give a qualititative criteria for what makes a
post 'decent' is a good *starting* point.

PS IAN!

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:41 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> I like this -- I still say we should put this into some objective
> metric and rate how each decision would sit in the metric, and then
> base our decisions on that, but I think this is good regardless.
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> It would have to be case by case, I would think.
>>
>> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
>> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>>
>> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?
>>
>> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
>> writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)
>>
>> For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
>> possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
>> unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
>> system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
>> health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
>>> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>>>
>>> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
>>> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
>>> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
>>> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
>>> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
>>> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
>>> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
>>> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>>>
>>> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>>>
>>> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>>>>
>>>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>>>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out of
>>>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to
>>>> play Gordon
>>>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not have
>>>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>>>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I
>>>> admit it) this
>>>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>>>> of players/writers.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win
>>>> over complete
>>>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>>>
>>>> Iain
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>>>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>>>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>>>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>>
>>>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>>>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER
>>>>
>>>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>>>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>>>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>>>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>>>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>>>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>>>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>>>
>>>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>>>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>>>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
>>>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>>>> like that out there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
>>>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
>>>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:17:46 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:47:46 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>

Hmmm. I'm starting to warm to the 1 to 10 scale a bit now that I think
about it.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ian Martell<martellian at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all count me in!
>
> Now for my two cents. First, I am for near-future WAR, it's basically what I
> think of when I think of WAR and it's easy for people to understand getting
> into it. As to the codification debate, I like what Lee is saying, the point
> scale could be helpful in that it creates a baseline for people to orient
> their posts by and saves lots of research. That said I'd like to make the
> following suggestions. First, that government, population, and international
> support numbers are taken into account. ie the more popular your leader the
> more he can do etc. Also that we keep the 'crack test' and the idea that
> good writing can make up for a multitude of impossibilities, for example if
> you write a solid series of posts about how your leader gets the country to
> accept something a little out there, I think it should go through,
> especially if it moves the game along.
>
> So in summary, I think the story of the game should be the primary focus
> (after all its what makes it fun) but we do need something either real world
> facts or the 1-10 scale to keep a common frame of reference for our posts.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:02 PM
> To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to
>> be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.
>>
>> I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries
>> fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and
>> then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility
>> that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being
>> right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed
>> by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain
>> highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down
>> to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).
>>
>> I think that makes sense?
>>
>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>>>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>>>
>>> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
>>> needs to be expanded) start.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:21:21 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:51:21 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211421l202d3a50k2b22964d213d6ab0@mail.gmail.com>

I think that quantifying every single post on the 1-10 scale would be
cumbersome, and that we should leave it to the critical thinking and
judgment of the writers and GMs to determine the acceptability and
probability of posts but the 1-10 scale could be a 'tiebreaker' method
in the event there is a disagreement about the probability of a post
succeeding.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Michael
Downey<michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm. I'm starting to warm to the 1 to 10 scale a bit now that I think
> about it.
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ian Martell<martellian at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey all count me in!
>>
>> Now for my two cents. First, I am for near-future WAR, it's basically what I
>> think of when I think of WAR and it's easy for people to understand getting
>> into it. As to the codification debate, I like what Lee is saying, the point
>> scale could be helpful in that it creates a baseline for people to orient
>> their posts by and saves lots of research. That said I'd like to make the
>> following suggestions. First, that government, population, and international
>> support numbers are taken into account. ie the more popular your leader the
>> more he can do etc. Also that we keep the 'crack test' and the idea that
>> good writing can make up for a multitude of impossibilities, for example if
>> you write a solid series of posts about how your leader gets the country to
>> accept something a little out there, I think it should go through,
>> especially if it moves the game along.
>>
>> So in summary, I think the story of the game should be the primary focus
>> (after all its what makes it fun) but we do need something either real world
>> facts or the 1-10 scale to keep a common frame of reference for our posts.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:02 PM
>> To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>> I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to
>>> be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.
>>>
>>> I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries
>>> fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and
>>> then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility
>>> that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being
>>> right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed
>>> by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain
>>> highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down
>>> to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).
>>>
>>> I think that makes sense?
>>>
>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>>>>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>>>>
>>>> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
>>>> needs to be expanded) start.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>


From martellian at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:21:39 2009
From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:21:39 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211416o179d91f2h989917c5078b96ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca><ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com><20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com><20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca><3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw><20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com><20090621171135.c3kfnvpy8g8884oo@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211416o179d91f2h989917c5078b96ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DS67767B37C9C234E554B92C6380@phx.gbl>

Hey Mike!


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Downey" <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:16 PM
To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

> Your idea is logical and would make sense if we were more of a
> military/combat sim (ironic given our title). But we are a creative
> writing game, why burden ourselves with trying to quantify
> political/military/economic levels of every country that is being
> played? A logical, critical thinking approach seems more apt. Not to
> say numbers aren't going to play a part (Zimbabwe's GDP obviously
> doesn't allow for nuclear power plants to be constructed) but
> assigning everything from 1 to 10 seems to be placing headaches on
> John.
>
> And yes Pat we are listing to you. Your point in KISS is very apt, and
> I think that trying to give a qualititative criteria for what makes a
> post 'decent' is a good *starting* point.
>
> PS IAN!
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:41 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> I like this -- I still say we should put this into some objective
>> metric and rate how each decision would sit in the metric, and then
>> base our decisions on that, but I think this is good regardless.
>>
>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> It would have to be case by case, I would think.
>>>
>>> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
>>> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>>>
>>> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in 
>>> question?
>>>
>>> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough (personal note, quality of
>>> writing is purely a qualitative review, in my opinion)
>>>
>>> For example, the Russian president being overthrown by the army is
>>> possible. The US president being overthrown by the military is highly
>>> unlikely. Just as the US President fully nationalizing the health care
>>> system is unlikely but the Canadian PM fully nationalizing Canada's
>>> health care system is well within the realm of 'possible'
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down
>>>> to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.
>>>>
>>>> At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against
>>>> some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale
>>>> in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,
>>>> right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning
>>>> environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a
>>>> reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be
>>>> determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in
>>>> place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.
>>>>
>>>> And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all 
>>>>> ;-)):
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
>>>>> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us 
>>>>> out of
>>>>> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to
>>>>> play Gordon
>>>>> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not 
>>>>> have
>>>>> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>>>>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I
>>>>> admit it) this
>>>>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a 
>>>>> good set
>>>>> of players/writers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win
>>>>> over complete
>>>>> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iain
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com 
>>>>> [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>>>>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>>>>> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
>>>>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>>>
>>>>> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
>>>>> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOWEVER
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
>>>>> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
>>>>> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
>>>>> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
>>>>> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
>>>>> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
>>>>> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
>>>>> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
>>>>> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is 
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
>>>>>> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
>>>>>> like that out there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
>>>>>> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make 
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
>>>>>> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
>>>>>> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
>>>>>> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
>>>>>> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
>>>>>> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
>>>>>> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
>>>>>> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
>>>>>> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
>>>>>> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if 
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are backed with good writing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> 


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:23:41 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:23:41 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
few rules.

Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it was when I
joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
developed and used).

Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.

With that said:

As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.

Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.

A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:

WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
*tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
delegate.

The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.

Moving on:

When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the guy trying
to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.

It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.

John

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:

> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
> out the small things.
>
> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>
> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>
> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>
> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/74cc0220/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:25:16 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:25:16 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Now we're talking!

I think this dynamic, quality based point scale could work wonders. In  
terms of Population, China would be a 10, Seychelles 0. Cash: USA  
Money = 10, Zimbabwe = 0. Control could be a defined function of all  
of the above. That way for anything to happen we'd still need to write  
quality posts, but it would enforce boundaries so that we don't turn  
to genetically engineering ebola monkeys in nuclear reactors to keep  
competitive in our future, flying-ebola monkey-driven economy ;)

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> Hmmm. I'm starting to warm to the 1 to 10 scale a bit now that I think
> about it.
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ian Martell<martellian at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey all count me in!
>>
>> Now for my two cents. First, I am for near-future WAR, it's basically what I
>> think of when I think of WAR and it's easy for people to understand getting
>> into it. As to the codification debate, I like what Lee is saying, the point
>> scale could be helpful in that it creates a baseline for people to orient
>> their posts by and saves lots of research. That said I'd like to make the
>> following suggestions. First, that government, population, and international
>> support numbers are taken into account. ie the more popular your leader the
>> more he can do etc. Also that we keep the 'crack test' and the idea that
>> good writing can make up for a multitude of impossibilities, for example if
>> you write a solid series of posts about how your leader gets the country to
>> accept something a little out there, I think it should go through,
>> especially if it moves the game along.
>>
>> So in summary, I think the story of the game should be the primary focus
>> (after all its what makes it fun) but we do need something either real world
>> facts or the 1-10 scale to keep a common frame of reference for our posts.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:02 PM
>> To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>> I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to
>>> be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.
>>>
>>> I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries
>>> fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and
>>> then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility
>>> that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being
>>> right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed
>>> by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain
>>> highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down
>>> to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).
>>>
>>> I think that makes sense?
>>>
>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>>>>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>>>>
>>>> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
>>>> needs to be expanded) start.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 17:25:53 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:25:53 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3EA561.4020709@aol.com>

Well I don't really like sheep I was just making a point.

However, what we can do is this.... set up a scale from No chance in 
hell of happening to done and done

that could be 1 to 10

For example some ones would be
BNP government forms peacefully
Military coup in the US,
Sudden gundam robots in Zimbabwe




From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:28:04 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:58:04 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211428n77d10edbn661077e04076ad15@mail.gmail.com>

To be clear, I think a critical thinking "is this possible?" approach
from the GMN would be the first method in determine the
success/failure/difficulty of a post, and the 'scale' method being
used in the event of a disagreement.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:55 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Now we're talking!
>
> I think this dynamic, quality based point scale could work wonders. In
> terms of Population, China would be a 10, Seychelles 0. Cash: USA
> Money = 10, Zimbabwe = 0. Control could be a defined function of all
> of the above. That way for anything to happen we'd still need to write
> quality posts, but it would enforce boundaries so that we don't turn
> to genetically engineering ebola monkeys in nuclear reactors to keep
> competitive in our future, flying-ebola monkey-driven economy ;)
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hmmm. I'm starting to warm to the 1 to 10 scale a bit now that I think
>> about it.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ian Martell<martellian at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey all count me in!
>>>
>>> Now for my two cents. First, I am for near-future WAR, it's basically what I
>>> think of when I think of WAR and it's easy for people to understand getting
>>> into it. As to the codification debate, I like what Lee is saying, the point
>>> scale could be helpful in that it creates a baseline for people to orient
>>> their posts by and saves lots of research. That said I'd like to make the
>>> following suggestions. First, that government, population, and international
>>> support numbers are taken into account. ie the more popular your leader the
>>> more he can do etc. Also that we keep the 'crack test' and the idea that
>>> good writing can make up for a multitude of impossibilities, for example if
>>> you write a solid series of posts about how your leader gets the country to
>>> accept something a little out there, I think it should go through,
>>> especially if it moves the game along.
>>>
>>> So in summary, I think the story of the game should be the primary focus
>>> (after all its what makes it fun) but we do need something either real world
>>> facts or the 1-10 scale to keep a common frame of reference for our posts.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:02 PM
>>> To: <war_ooc at esteroic.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>>
>>>> Fair enough.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that goes far enough though -- there would still need to
>>>> be deliberation of whether or not it would work or not.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking more or less along the lines of rating the countries
>>>> fiscal, legal, and political leverages on a, say, 10 point scale, and
>>>> then deliberate if the actions are within the realm of possibility
>>>> that way. As an example, we could say that if (0 being left, 10 being
>>>> right) Canada as a country was a 5 on the political spectrum, governed
>>>> by a 6 government, implementing an 8 policy would be plain
>>>> highly-unlikely, whereby a 7 might seem fair. It would then come down
>>>> to defining how we determine where the policies lie (ie John's job).
>>>>
>>>> I think that makes sense?
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Again, we don't have to codify everything, but why not codify some
>>>>>> things so we don't have to get bogged down in it later?'
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the three criteria I listed were a good (but not perfect,
>>>>> needs to be expanded) start.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 17:28:28 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:28:28 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>

Ok...

now Imagine this scenario

Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
Newbie: Cool! How does it work
(insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes 
glaze over)
Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.



From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:31:36 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:31:36 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621143932.6mkb1p35wgggsocw@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211209u2cfa83c8o9564cdb8ecb69eae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>

To clarify:

We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left  
leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The  
population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the  
government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,  
and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy  
may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party  
might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the  
country, and would not be supported.

The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the  
political spectrum.

Make sense?

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
> few rules.
>
> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it was when I
> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
> developed and used).
>
> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>
> With that said:
>
> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>
> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>
> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>
> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
> delegate.
>
> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.
>
> Moving on:
>
> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the guy trying
> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>
> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>> out the small things.
>>
>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>
>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>
>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>
>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>





From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:32:17 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:32:17 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>
	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new  
people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?

Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:

> Ok...
>
> now Imagine this scenario
>
> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
> glaze over)
> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 17:33:48 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:48 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw>	<20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4A3EA73C.1070209@aol.com>

A good vetting process can wipe that out in 30 seconds along with rules 
like "nothing that makes us want to schedule you for a mandatory drug test."

And there's basic logic and a 10 point quantative scale taking in to 
account metrics which makes me wonder if we're going tor equire everyone 
on WAR to install MS office to have an excel spreadsheet of what's good.



From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:35:06 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:05:06 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>

But then doesn't John have to quantitatively decide what constitutes a
1 and what constitutes a 10? Wouldn't it just be easier for John to
sit down and say 'nationalization is hard and not liked in the USA,
especially with healthcare, does this post have enough logic,
evidence, and quality of grammar, style and syntax to justify
nationalizing the US health care system?'

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> To clarify:
>
> We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left
> leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The
> population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the
> government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,
> and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy
> may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party
> might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the
> country, and would not be supported.
>
> The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the
> political spectrum.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>
>> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
>> few rules.
>>
>> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
>> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
>> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it was when I
>> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
>> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
>> developed and used).
>>
>> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
>> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>>
>> With that said:
>>
>> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
>> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>>
>> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>>
>> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>>
>> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
>> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
>> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
>> delegate.
>>
>> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
>> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.
>>
>> Moving on:
>>
>> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
>> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the guy trying
>> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>>
>> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
>> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>>> out the small things.
>>>
>>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>>
>>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>>
>>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>>
>>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:35:17 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:35:17 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211435m4abd3b1bo500503aac9ea9686@mail.gmail.com>

We can prevent zimbabwe gundams.

We need newbies.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new
> people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?
>
> Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:
>
> > Ok...
> >
> > now Imagine this scenario
> >
> > Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
> > GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
> > Newbie: Cool! How does it work
> > (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
> > glaze over)
> > Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
> > Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > War_ooc mailing list
> > War_ooc at esteroic.com
> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/c6d66490/attachment-0001.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:36:24 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:06:24 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211436g6b3fa610tc0c11d4880fec474@mail.gmail.com>

To add,

In the event there is some sort of disagreement when the mentioned
criteria are used, then we can bring up the 1-10 scale

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Michael
Downey<michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
> But then doesn't John have to quantitatively decide what constitutes a
> 1 and what constitutes a 10? Wouldn't it just be easier for John to
> sit down and say 'nationalization is hard and not liked in the USA,
> especially with healthcare, does this post have enough logic,
> evidence, and quality of grammar, style and syntax to justify
> nationalizing the US health care system?'
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> To clarify:
>>
>> We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left
>> leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The
>> population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the
>> government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,
>> and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy
>> may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party
>> might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the
>> country, and would not be supported.
>>
>> The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the
>> political spectrum.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
>>> few rules.
>>>
>>> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
>>> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
>>> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it was when I
>>> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
>>> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
>>> developed and used).
>>>
>>> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
>>> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>>>
>>> With that said:
>>>
>>> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
>>> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>>>
>>> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>>>
>>> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>>>
>>> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
>>> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
>>> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
>>> delegate.
>>>
>>> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
>>> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.
>>>
>>> Moving on:
>>>
>>> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
>>> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the guy trying
>>> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>>>
>>> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
>>> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>>>> out the small things.
>>>>
>>>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>>>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>>>
>>>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>>>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>>>
>>>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>>>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>>>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>>>
>>>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>


From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Sun Jun 21 17:39:00 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:39:00 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com><6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com><20090621163133.ykzwkoutlwwsgcw4@webmail.utoronto.ca><3A148BC86A1B4D53AAD8F7A9459F2A3F@iainw><20090621164600.wj2e3uej0g408oo8@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211353r26f9fad7l96ad420e35468a84@mail.gmail.com><20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca><6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com><20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca><BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl><6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com><20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca><4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>

I must say I'm with Pat on this particular point - I maybe one of the
newbies myself but I would be thinking wtf, screw that had it been brought
up during joining.

If new people come in and introduce stupid, completely off the wall things
that can surely be addressed then?

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
Sent: 21 June 2009 22:32
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new  
people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?

Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:

> Ok...
>
> now Imagine this scenario
>
> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
> glaze over)
> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>




_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:40:24 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:40:24 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211436g6b3fa610tc0c11d4880fec474@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211436g6b3fa610tc0c11d4880fec474@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211440g43c29cf4y19d1cf2dbe9536bc@mail.gmail.com>

How about we prevent the insanity by my saying that I'm not going to use any
such scale if I can possibly avoid it?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> To add,
>
> In the event there is some sort of disagreement when the mentioned
> criteria are used, then we can bring up the 1-10 scale.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/3d3eb234/attachment.html 

From pbuck11 at aol.com  Sun Jun 21 17:41:26 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:41:26 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211436g6b3fa610tc0c11d4880fec474@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211436g6b3fa610tc0c11d4880fec474@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3EA906.4020509@aol.com>

Thank you Ian....

A lot of this is arguing about stuff that MAY never come up.

Zimbabwe gundams, anyone who takes Zimbabwe, is going to know what can 
and cannot be done by his country.....

Thank you John for speaking up about the scale...


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:42:02 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:42:02 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621152653.atvexaasgkco0w0g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211313u1bde6546hf0a3f76d345610af@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>

The problem with that is that it introduces a subjective viewpoint.

It would be more along the lines of,

10. Final Solution

2-4. Nationalizing Healthcare

0. Permanent Revolution

And determining where things fall in there. Then we just argue about  
how far policies fall from the position of the government, the  
position of the people, and rumble along from there. So we could say  
that, hypothetically, a people/party may adopt a policy within 1-2  
political points of where their political leaning are. It's then in  
John's POV where exactly it lies, and if someone was able to pass  
something before, and in one case John lets it pass, you'd have an  
argument to let it pass later on in a similar instance. Ie, if we say  
something's a 5, you can try to implement a similar policy, since it  
would make sense for you.

You shouldn't be afraid of math. Math is a tool -- it doesn't bite ;)

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> But then doesn't John have to quantitatively decide what constitutes a
> 1 and what constitutes a 10? Wouldn't it just be easier for John to
> sit down and say 'nationalization is hard and not liked in the USA,
> especially with healthcare, does this post have enough logic,
> evidence, and quality of grammar, style and syntax to justify
> nationalizing the US health care system?'
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> To clarify:
>>
>> We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left
>> leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The
>> population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the
>> government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,
>> and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy
>> may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party
>> might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the
>> country, and would not be supported.
>>
>> The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the
>> political spectrum.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
>>> few rules.
>>>
>>> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
>>> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
>>> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it   
>>> was when I
>>> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
>>> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
>>> developed and used).
>>>
>>> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
>>> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>>>
>>> With that said:
>>>
>>> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
>>> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>>>
>>> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>>>
>>> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>>>
>>> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
>>> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
>>> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
>>> delegate.
>>>
>>> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
>>> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.
>>>
>>> Moving on:
>>>
>>> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
>>> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the   
>>> guy trying
>>> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>>>
>>> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
>>> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>>>> out the small things.
>>>>
>>>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>>>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>>>
>>>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>>>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>>>
>>>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>>>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>>>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>>>
>>>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:43:26 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:43:26 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211443x298aae4ey9906735e552d7d56@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:42 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> You shouldn't be afraid of math. Math is a tool -- it doesn't bite ;)


YES IT DOES!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/d485946a/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:43:37 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:13:37 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>

I would say to perspective applicants:

----
Hey, welcome to war. We are a creative writing game grounded in
realism, but the main point is to have fun! When writing a post, take
the following things into mind-
1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?

2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?

3) Is the quality of writing good enough? Are my arguments logical?
Have I given credible justification?
---

I do prefer this instead of telling then "in this creative writing
game we base everything on a political/economic/military/social scale
system of 1 to 10." The 1-10 system isn't stupid, it is logical, but
it would be too cumbersome to be the main system in our game, IMHO



On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
> I must say I'm with Pat on this particular point - I maybe one of the
> newbies myself but I would be thinking wtf, screw that had it been brought
> up during joining.
>
> If new people come in and introduce stupid, completely off the wall things
> that can surely be addressed then?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
> Sent: 21 June 2009 22:32
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>
> Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new
> people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?
>
> Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:
>
>> Ok...
>>
>> now Imagine this scenario
>>
>> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
>> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
>> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
>> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
>> glaze over)
>> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
>> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:45:30 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:45:30 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165523.kp2h9zt9wcog088c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>
	<6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621174530.5x7vemaog8gc8kgc@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I like this.

Can we at least make a scale of Left, left-center, center-left,  
center, center-right, right-center, right then?

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> I would say to perspective applicants:
>
> ----
> Hey, welcome to war. We are a creative writing game grounded in
> realism, but the main point is to have fun! When writing a post, take
> the following things into mind-
> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>
> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in question?
>
> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough? Are my arguments logical?
> Have I given credible justification?
> ---
>
> I do prefer this instead of telling then "in this creative writing
> game we base everything on a political/economic/military/social scale
> system of 1 to 10." The 1-10 system isn't stupid, it is logical, but
> it would be too cumbersome to be the main system in our game, IMHO
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>> I must say I'm with Pat on this particular point - I maybe one of the
>> newbies myself but I would be thinking wtf, screw that had it been brought
>> up during joining.
>>
>> If new people come in and introduce stupid, completely off the wall things
>> that can surely be addressed then?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
>> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>> Sent: 21 June 2009 22:32
>> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>>
>> Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new
>> people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?
>>
>> Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:
>>
>>> Ok...
>>>
>>> now Imagine this scenario
>>>
>>> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
>>> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
>>> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
>>> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
>>> glaze over)
>>> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
>>> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:45:31 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:45:31 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211356ua854b72v32e4e97a5a5896aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>
	<6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211445l505a8717nc9dceefa4ab33b03@mail.gmail.com>

Guys, seriously.

Not going to use it.

LET IT GO.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say to perspective applicants:
>
> ----
> Hey, welcome to war. We are a creative writing game grounded in
> realism, but the main point is to have fun! When writing a post, take
> the following things into mind-
> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>
> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in
> question?
>
> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough? Are my arguments logical?
> Have I given credible justification?
> ---
>
> I do prefer this instead of telling then "in this creative writing
> game we base everything on a political/economic/military/social scale
> system of 1 to 10." The 1-10 system isn't stupid, it is logical, but
> it would be too cumbersome to be the main system in our game, IMHO
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
> > I must say I'm with Pat on this particular point - I maybe one of the
> > newbies myself but I would be thinking wtf, screw that had it been
> brought
> > up during joining.
> >
> > If new people come in and introduce stupid, completely off the wall
> things
> > that can surely be addressed then?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com]
> On
> > Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
> > Sent: 21 June 2009 22:32
> > To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> > Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
> >
> > Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new
> > people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?
> >
> > Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:
> >
> >> Ok...
> >>
> >> now Imagine this scenario
> >>
> >> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
> >> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
> >> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
> >> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
> >> glaze over)
> >> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
> >> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> War_ooc mailing list
> >> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> >> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > War_ooc mailing list
> > War_ooc at esteroic.com
> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > War_ooc mailing list
> > War_ooc at esteroic.com
> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/1fdb1f55/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:46:00 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:16:00 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>

But why? Can't we, in a creative writing game, just use our own logic
and knowledge of the world and politics to determine if something
makes sense or not?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> The problem with that is that it introduces a subjective viewpoint.
>
> It would be more along the lines of,
>
> 10. Final Solution
>
> 2-4. Nationalizing Healthcare
>
> 0. Permanent Revolution
>
> And determining where things fall in there. Then we just argue about
> how far policies fall from the position of the government, the
> position of the people, and rumble along from there. So we could say
> that, hypothetically, a people/party may adopt a policy within 1-2
> political points of where their political leaning are. It's then in
> John's POV where exactly it lies, and if someone was able to pass
> something before, and in one case John lets it pass, you'd have an
> argument to let it pass later on in a similar instance. Ie, if we say
> something's a 5, you can try to implement a similar policy, since it
> would make sense for you.
>
> You shouldn't be afraid of math. Math is a tool -- it doesn't bite ;)
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> But then doesn't John have to quantitatively decide what constitutes a
>> 1 and what constitutes a 10? Wouldn't it just be easier for John to
>> sit down and say 'nationalization is hard and not liked in the USA,
>> especially with healthcare, does this post have enough logic,
>> evidence, and quality of grammar, style and syntax to justify
>> nationalizing the US health care system?'
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> To clarify:
>>>
>>> We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left
>>> leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The
>>> population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the
>>> government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,
>>> and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy
>>> may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party
>>> might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the
>>> country, and would not be supported.
>>>
>>> The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the
>>> political spectrum.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>>
>>> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works best with very
>>>> few rules.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but are in fact
>>>> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons use (which
>>>> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it
>>>> was when I
>>>> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I don't -care- if
>>>> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time they were
>>>> developed and used).
>>>>
>>>> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
>>>> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>>>>
>>>> With that said:
>>>>
>>>> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
>>>> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>>>>
>>>> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>>>>
>>>> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>>>>
>>>> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
>>>> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work. Where needed, I
>>>> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
>>>> delegate.
>>>>
>>>> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm delegating out of
>>>> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and advertising.
>>>>
>>>> Moving on:
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
>>>> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the
>>>> guy trying
>>>> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>>>>
>>>> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
>>>> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>>>>> out the small things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>>>>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>>>>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>>>>
>>>>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>>>>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>>>>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:46:53 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:16:53 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211445l505a8717nc9dceefa4ab33b03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621170209.upaz32b280wok48s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<BAY124-DS2AB812293AB8AA3D1D08CC6380@phx.gbl>
	<6b6ab8a70906211417w15bb4e2cg37957574d8227f72@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621172516.9ycxl1vz4gg44sos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3EA5FC.6050401@aol.com>
	<20090621173217.hcnygemc2kg4c4wk@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<9CB5E5B31EBC4A32B05F8BA57B1EB340@iainw>
	<6b6ab8a70906211443s5432b5cem3bf20e57ac708cc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211445l505a8717nc9dceefa4ab33b03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211446s1d346ad5uad83991a79488b17@mail.gmail.com>

I think all that can be said has been said. Enough argument has gone
around for all of us to maybe take an hour or two and make a decision?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:15 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, seriously.
>
> Not going to use it.
>
> LET IT GO.
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Michael Downey
> <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would say to perspective applicants:
>>
>> ----
>> Hey, welcome to war. We are a creative writing game grounded in
>> realism, but the main point is to have fun! When writing a post, take
>> the following things into mind-
>> 1) Has anything like/similar this happened before? Has anything
>> like/similar to this happened in this particular country before?
>>
>> 2) How left/right is this action? How left/right is the country in
>> question?
>>
>> 3) Is the quality of writing good enough? Are my arguments logical?
>> Have I given credible justification?
>> ---
>>
>> I do prefer this instead of telling then "in this creative writing
>> game we base everything on a political/economic/military/social scale
>> system of 1 to 10." The 1-10 system isn't stupid, it is logical, but
>> it would be too cumbersome to be the main system in our game, IMHO
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>> > I must say I'm with Pat on this particular point - I maybe one of the
>> > newbies myself but I would be thinking wtf, screw that had it been
>> > brought
>> > up during joining.
>> >
>> > If new people come in and introduce stupid, completely off the wall
>> > things
>> > that can surely be addressed then?
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com]
>> > On
>> > Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
>> > Sent: 21 June 2009 22:32
>> > To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
>> > Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>> >
>> > Yeah, but then we avoid the zimbabwe gundams. Do you really want new
>> > people coming in just to introduce zimbabwe gundams?
>> >
>> > Quoting Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com>:
>> >
>> >> Ok...
>> >>
>> >> now Imagine this scenario
>> >>
>> >> Newbie: Yaay new sim....I'm gonna be germany it's gonna be fun
>> >> GM: Ok we have a system to rank posts
>> >> Newbie: Cool! How does it work
>> >> (insert long post involving scale sliding money control quality....eyes
>> >> glaze over)
>> >> Newbie: Screw this i'm going to play WOW, <unsubs>
>> >> Rest of us: Why can't we get newbies.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> War_ooc mailing list
>> >> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> >> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > War_ooc mailing list
>> > War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > War_ooc mailing list
>> > War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:48:13 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:48:13 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211448n7e0f2e83nd547ea5de31e82b7@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> But why? Can't we, in a creative writing game, just use our own logic
> and knowledge of the world and politics to determine if something
> makes sense or not?


My question exactly.

Okay, yes, we're at 52 posts in under a few hours.

Everybody, for the love of God, get AIM, we can argue there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/47500be3/attachment-0001.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 17:48:33 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:48:33 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211329j455d30d4i669804dc1bd2cc65@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211335u2532e497n7d03a5c5ca528e1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621174833.s6c9epzpc004s8sw@webmail.utoronto.ca>

My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective  
viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at  
best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> But why? Can't we, in a creative writing game, just use our own logic
> and knowledge of the world and politics to determine if something
> makes sense or not?
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> The problem with that is that it introduces a subjective viewpoint.
>>
>> It would be more along the lines of,
>>
>> 10. Final Solution
>>
>> 2-4. Nationalizing Healthcare
>>
>> 0. Permanent Revolution
>>
>> And determining where things fall in there. Then we just argue about
>> how far policies fall from the position of the government, the
>> position of the people, and rumble along from there. So we could say
>> that, hypothetically, a people/party may adopt a policy within 1-2
>> political points of where their political leaning are. It's then in
>> John's POV where exactly it lies, and if someone was able to pass
>> something before, and in one case John lets it pass, you'd have an
>> argument to let it pass later on in a similar instance. Ie, if we say
>> something's a 5, you can try to implement a similar policy, since it
>> would make sense for you.
>>
>> You shouldn't be afraid of math. Math is a tool -- it doesn't bite ;)
>>
>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> But then doesn't John have to quantitatively decide what constitutes a
>>> 1 and what constitutes a 10? Wouldn't it just be easier for John to
>>> sit down and say 'nationalization is hard and not liked in the USA,
>>> especially with healthcare, does this post have enough logic,
>>> evidence, and quality of grammar, style and syntax to justify
>>> nationalizing the US health care system?'
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> To clarify:
>>>>
>>>> We basically make a qualitative scale. Say a government is centre-left
>>>> leaning. We say that they have a government political rating of 4. The
>>>> population is centre leaning, hypothetically a 5. We say that the
>>>> government makes a decision like nationalizing the health care system,
>>>> and say that decision is in 2-3 land (pretty left leaning). The policy
>>>> may be in line with the party's politics, and therefore the party
>>>> might support it, but it could be extremely out of line with the
>>>> country, and would not be supported.
>>>>
>>>> The argument would then become defining where everything lies in the
>>>> political spectrum.
>>>>
>>>> Make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is that WAR works   
>>>>> best with very
>>>>> few rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly covering actions which may seem perfectly rational, but   
>>>>> are in fact
>>>>> destructive to the game. Hence the rule against nuclear weapons   
>>>>> use (which
>>>>> should indeed be put on paper, because it is not as obvious as it
>>>>> was when I
>>>>> joined the game) and the rule against EMP weapons at all (I   
>>>>> don't -care- if
>>>>> they're possible IRL, they made the game fucked up the last time  
>>>>>  they were
>>>>> developed and used).
>>>>>
>>>>> Buckley, we know you like to do bad things to sheep, but Bestiality is
>>>>> illegal, kindly quit advertising your fondness for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With that said:
>>>>>
>>>>> As nobody's argued otherwise - this incarnation of WAR is mine.
>>>>> Mineminemine. I more or less 'own' it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thing is, I really would hate to exercise my powers of ownership.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few things I want to settle now. One thing, actually:
>>>>>
>>>>> WAR will not be run by committee. Consensus where possible, but we've
>>>>> *tried* running a game by committee, it didn't really work.   
>>>>> Where needed, I
>>>>> will be dictator. GMing may well be just me, or it may be a function I
>>>>> delegate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OOC shit like web design, graphics, advertising, I'm   
>>>>> delegating out of
>>>>> necessity. I can't -do- graphics, and I suck at web stuff and   
>>>>> advertising.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving on:
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to trying to objectively measure post quality...You cannot
>>>>> objectively measure taste. Additionally, I would -hate- to be the
>>>>> guy trying
>>>>> to explain to a newbie a scale like that, or an xyz axis of post effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> It confuses me still, after reading it over 6 or 7 times. Even as a
>>>>> tie-breaker, it makes my head hurt.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrick B <pbuck11 at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One step at a time let's see who's all here, then we can start hammering
>>>>>> out the small things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some rules are required, let's face it an anarchist sim is a recipe for
>>>>>> disaster, it's kinda like herding cats....never gonna end well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if we have too many rules we're just tabletopping with e-mail and
>>>>>> too many rules make newbies go somewhere else...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So rather then do we need a rule for world leaders and army movement
>>>>>> instead think of what do we need for rules..... what is essential and
>>>>>> how can we make it as simple as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KISS rules.... Keep It Simple Stupid.... remember that
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 17:55:59 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:25:59 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211448n7e0f2e83nd547ea5de31e82b7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906210848k3cbd69fan96a97423d7c66555@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211350r5bd42dfbjc922e2eea9170c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621165253.ho4aybevqkowwo0c@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<4A3E9EB9.6050007@aol.com>
	<ab8370d40906211423l75c71975s641916a20dc63bf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621173136.8iza2x5zwwkg8w8g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211435kb4dbe2cv2afd8367d962b7cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621174202.sb83h65ymuooocos@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211446s3b95024k72514d7c526ed4c9@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211448n7e0f2e83nd547ea5de31e82b7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211455k3ae60fb0q71b4a8b9af4d652b@mail.gmail.com>

Can we adopt an official IM for WAR? I don't even have a IM on my new
Dell and I just want to know what we are all going to be using? AIM?
MSN?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Downey
> <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But why? Can't we, in a creative writing game, just use our own logic
>> and knowledge of the world and politics to determine if something
>> makes sense or not?
>
>
> My question exactly.
>
> Okay, yes, we're at 52 posts in under a few hours.
>
> Everybody, for the love of God, get AIM, we can argue there.
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 18:02:07 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:02:07 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re:  Okay, so...)
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, exactly.

That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.

Wow.

Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:

1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
anyway.

2. We're not going with post scales, etc.

3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
What's next:

Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?

Even just one person per task would be good.

While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
it'll get done.:)

Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety side wants to
start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.

John

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/e05508ba/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 18:06:35 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:36:35 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211506j534efe06h3e37f8e5466f4c77@mail.gmail.com>

1. Cool.

2. By thine command.

3. As I have nether, I don't care which one you pick.

I'm not volunteering to do it because I am software-inept, but the
Wikia idea seems simple It's free (I think?) simple (for people who
aren't me) and accessable. I think someone brought up the worry about
vandalism, but is that *really* a concern? No one in our group is
going to do it and I don't think people go trolling for wiki sites of
eight members to vandalize.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, exactly.
>
> That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.
>
> Wow.
>
> Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:
>
> 1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
> anyway.
>
> 2. We're not going with post scales, etc.
>
> 3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
> use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
> What's next:
>
> Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?
>
> Even just one person per task would be good.
>
> While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
> timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
> it'll get done.:)
>
> Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety side wants to
> start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
>> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
>> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 18:13:18 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:13:18 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211506j534efe06h3e37f8e5466f4c77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211506j534efe06h3e37f8e5466f4c77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621181318.sy55dwxtz40ow8c4@webmail.utoronto.ca>

To be fair, I have managed smaller wikis that have been spammed. I'd  
be careful about a wiki.

Btw, I am now leeatwar on AIM.

:P

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> 1. Cool.
>
> 2. By thine command.
>
> 3. As I have nether, I don't care which one you pick.
>
> I'm not volunteering to do it because I am software-inept, but the
> Wikia idea seems simple It's free (I think?) simple (for people who
> aren't me) and accessable. I think someone brought up the worry about
> vandalism, but is that *really* a concern? No one in our group is
> going to do it and I don't think people go trolling for wiki sites of
> eight members to vandalize.
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>> That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:
>>
>> 1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
>> anyway.
>>
>> 2. We're not going with post scales, etc.
>>
>> 3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
>> use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
>> What's next:
>>
>> Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?
>>
>> Even just one person per task would be good.
>>
>> While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
>> timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
>> it'll get done.:)
>>
>> Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety side wants to
>> start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
>>> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
>>> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 18:15:23 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:45:23 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <20090621181318.sy55dwxtz40ow8c4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211506j534efe06h3e37f8e5466f4c77@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621181318.sy55dwxtz40ow8c4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211515k94dc74as62f18895db9263a@mail.gmail.com>

Well you are probably a better expert on it that I could ever be.
Couldn't we just have a members-only wiki? Someone here be an admin
that OKs all members so only WAR players can edit the wiki? Is that
even possible?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> To be fair, I have managed smaller wikis that have been spammed. I'd
> be careful about a wiki.
>
> Btw, I am now leeatwar on AIM.
>
> :P
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> 1. Cool.
>>
>> 2. By thine command.
>>
>> 3. As I have nether, I don't care which one you pick.
>>
>> I'm not volunteering to do it because I am software-inept, but the
>> Wikia idea seems simple It's free (I think?) simple (for people who
>> aren't me) and accessable. I think someone brought up the worry about
>> vandalism, but is that *really* a concern? No one in our group is
>> going to do it and I don't think people go trolling for wiki sites of
>> eight members to vandalize.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>> That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:
>>>
>>> 1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> 2. We're not going with post scales, etc.
>>>
>>> 3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
>>> use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
>>> What's next:
>>>
>>> Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?
>>>
>>> Even just one person per task would be good.
>>>
>>> While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
>>> timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
>>> it'll get done.:)
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety side wants to
>>> start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
>>>> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
>>>> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>


From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 20:01:15 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:01:15 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211515k94dc74as62f18895db9263a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211502p4626deaax6ee7c53b49843212@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211506j534efe06h3e37f8e5466f4c77@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621181318.sy55dwxtz40ow8c4@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<6b6ab8a70906211515k94dc74as62f18895db9263a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621200115.khb2fva8s0sc0sck@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I'll volunteer to handle the website, but I need to know what we want/need.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> Well you are probably a better expert on it that I could ever be.
> Couldn't we just have a members-only wiki? Someone here be an admin
> that OKs all members so only WAR players can edit the wiki? Is that
> even possible?
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> To be fair, I have managed smaller wikis that have been spammed. I'd
>> be careful about a wiki.
>>
>> Btw, I am now leeatwar on AIM.
>>
>> :P
>>
>> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 1. Cool.
>>>
>>> 2. By thine command.
>>>
>>> 3. As I have nether, I don't care which one you pick.
>>>
>>> I'm not volunteering to do it because I am software-inept, but the
>>> Wikia idea seems simple It's free (I think?) simple (for people who
>>> aren't me) and accessable. I think someone brought up the worry about
>>> vandalism, but is that *really* a concern? No one in our group is
>>> going to do it and I don't think people go trolling for wiki sites of
>>> eight members to vandalize.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>>
>>>> That's 50+ posts in UNDER 2 hours, guys.
>>>>
>>>> Wow.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, what I've determined from the last 2 hours:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We're going with the near-future setting. Seems to be the consensus
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> 2. We're not going with post scales, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I'm seriously thinking of making AIM mandatory. No, not kidding. I can
>>>> use AIM or MSN, but everybody seems to use AIM already.
>>>> What's next:
>>>>
>>>> Who wants to volunteer to do advertising, web design, graphics?
>>>>
>>>> Even just one person per task would be good.
>>>>
>>>> While we get that started...Actually, no. BEFORE I start work on the
>>>> timeline and stuff, I want to see people lined up for that stuff. Only way
>>>> it'll get done.:)
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any quibbles on timeline date? My persnickety   
>>>> side wants to
>>>> start in an off-year (2013, 2017, etc) like last time.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My argument would be that it relies on us to not have a subjective
>>>>> viewpoint -- which, speaking from an educated standpoint, is naive at
>>>>> best. Anyway, John's not interested, so the point is gone.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> War_ooc mailing list
>>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>





From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun 21 20:04:04 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
Message-ID: <49277.32031.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Holy crap! I hate timezones! I've just read seventy-five emails, and I haven't even had breakfast yet!
Anyways, my take;
The idea of WAR IN SPACE is interesting. It could have been set as Earth decays, perhaps it sees the establishment of several colonies who have relations like that of medieval kingdoms (before country's were country's, ie England, where everyone had different areas they controlled). Perhaps they have to relate for the sake of the exchange of minerals, gas, resources, maybe some control and some don't.
I don't think the scale is necessary. I'm a realism-fanatic as much as others, but I think people know what's realistic and what's not, and if they post something stupid, the GM can slap them down.
Anyways, most of this has already been covered. Again, damn timezones!
Dan


      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/b0f4f232/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:13:40 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:13:40 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>

Don't (that is, do NOT) claim countries yet. Please.

I'm going to write the timeline very bullheadedly - not that any country is
on my attack-list, but there are certain thoughts I've had over the past 48
hours that I want to explore.

Themes that have hit my radar, not really sure how I'm going to integrate
them, but this is fair warning. You may not agree with these in any way -
you may well violently disagree with how I express them (or expressing them
at all) for each country, but I'm using these as publicly-announced
guideposts.

 1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really got
explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level (ie,
globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but it'll
show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it would,
either.

  2. The Long, Slow Rebound - Ignoring all the alphabet soup descriptors of
a recession, I posit that the recession takes until mid-2010 to begin to
end, and the recovery is still fragile by 2013.

  3. The Twitter society - No, I'm not going to try and figure out how
twitter will make its money. But I figure that social-networking sites will
continue to explode...with unpredictable effects on society.

  These are starter points - I doubtlessly will think up entirely new ideas
(some good, some bad, some truly strange) as I sit to do this.

I will, you may rest assured, include my share of surprises.

Update: About that timeline. Right now, I'm not at my normal computer (It's
currently broken - the AC adapter won't stay plugged in). I lost all my
notes in a hard drive crash after WAR died the first time, a quick check of
it shows.

Sigh. I want -one person- to step forward and help me with the mass of
writing that looks likely to be ahead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/139c404d/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:38:23 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:08:23 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211738o2d6660f0q7917d89e855928a5@mail.gmail.com>

> ?1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really got
> explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
> things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level (ie,
> globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
> values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but it'll
> show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it would,
> either.

Really? I haven't noticed a 'macro' rise in religious fervor and
traditional values on a global scale at all.


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:48:32 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:48:32 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906211738o2d6660f0q7917d89e855928a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211738o2d6660f0q7917d89e855928a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211748k5b2608b7u74e476d26f166cd@mail.gmail.com>

You don't see it as much in the North, though you do among immigrants. Where
you see it is in places like West Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe,
all places from which immigrants typically have been coming.

It is, I grant, the iffiest of my posits - there's this gigantic argument in
the sociological journals over whether it's happening or whether it's
reporting issues (as reported by my brother, who's working towards applying
to grad school for a PHD in sociology).

It just seems more interesting to posit that it is, precisely because it
upends the secularization thesis so popular in sociological development
circles.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> >  1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really
> got
> > explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
> > things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level
> (ie,
> > globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
> > values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but
> it'll
> > show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it
> would,
> > either.
>
> Really? I haven't noticed a 'macro' rise in religious fervor and
> traditional values on a global scale at all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/95d9bf9e/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:52:04 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:22:04 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211748k5b2608b7u74e476d26f166cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b6ab8a70906211738o2d6660f0q7917d89e855928a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906211748k5b2608b7u74e476d26f166cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906211752k6dea311fm8caeb8c02b3f6648@mail.gmail.com>

Well I suppose I should really wait until the new setting info is put
out before we begin our violent disagreements. Until then.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't see it as much in the North, though you do among immigrants. Where
> you see it is in places like West Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe,
> all places from which immigrants typically have been coming.
>
> It is, I grant, the iffiest of my posits - there's this gigantic argument in
> the sociological journals over whether it's happening or whether it's
> reporting issues (as reported by my brother, who's working towards applying
> to grad school for a PHD in sociology).
>
> It just seems more interesting to posit that it is, precisely because it
> upends the secularization thesis so popular in sociological development
> circles.
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Michael Downey
> <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ?1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really
>> > got
>> > explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and
>> > other
>> > things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level
>> > (ie,
>> > globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
>> > values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but
>> > it'll
>> > show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it
>> > would,
>> > either.
>>
>> Really? I haven't noticed a 'macro' rise in religious fervor and
>> traditional values on a global scale at all.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun 21 20:52:22 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
Message-ID: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've mentioned? My uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night for him to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have thought it has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot more on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no Monty Python jokes intended).?
This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just a contribution to argument :D

--- On Mon, 22/6/09, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Received: Monday, 22 June, 2009, 10:48 AM

You don't see it as much in the North, though you do among immigrants. Where you see it is in places like West Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, all places from which immigrants typically have been coming.

?
It is, I grant, the iffiest of my posits - there's this gigantic argument in the sociological journals over whether it's happening or whether it's reporting issues (as reported by my brother, who's working towards applying to grad school for a PHD in sociology).

?
It just seems more interesting to posit that it is, precisely because it upends the secularization thesis so popular in sociological development circles.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really got
> explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
> things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level (ie,

> globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
> values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but it'll
> show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it would,

> either.

Really? I haven't noticed a 'macro' rise in religious fervor and
traditional values on a global scale at all.

_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list

War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com




-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/441d70b0/attachment-0001.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 20:56:18 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:56:18 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621205618.3rskod2kys80wo8s@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I'd like to point out that #2 will simply make it more difficult for  
more oppressive regimes to withhold information from masses, as being  
currently seen in Iran. Maybe effects on places like Iran/Syria,  
China, DPRK, Russia, et. al?

As well, could we maybe push it back to 2017, seeing as we'd have to  
come up for a reason why Barak's popularity would level off after only  
one term, and we could see the global economy in rebound? :P

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> Don't (that is, do NOT) claim countries yet. Please.
>
> I'm going to write the timeline very bullheadedly - not that any country is
> on my attack-list, but there are certain thoughts I've had over the past 48
> hours that I want to explore.
>
> Themes that have hit my radar, not really sure how I'm going to integrate
> them, but this is fair warning. You may not agree with these in any way -
> you may well violently disagree with how I express them (or expressing them
> at all) for each country, but I'm using these as publicly-announced
> guideposts.
>
>  1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really got
> explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
> things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level (ie,
> globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
> values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but it'll
> show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it would,
> either.
>
>   2. The Long, Slow Rebound - Ignoring all the alphabet soup descriptors of
> a recession, I posit that the recession takes until mid-2010 to begin to
> end, and the recovery is still fragile by 2013.
>
>   3. The Twitter society - No, I'm not going to try and figure out how
> twitter will make its money. But I figure that social-networking sites will
> continue to explode...with unpredictable effects on society.
>
>   These are starter points - I doubtlessly will think up entirely new ideas
> (some good, some bad, some truly strange) as I sit to do this.
>
> I will, you may rest assured, include my share of surprises.
>
> Update: About that timeline. Right now, I'm not at my normal computer (It's
> currently broken - the AC adapter won't stay plugged in). I lost all my
> notes in a hard drive crash after WAR died the first time, a quick check of
> it shows.
>
> Sigh. I want -one person- to step forward and help me with the mass of
> writing that looks likely to be ahead.
>





From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 20:57:27 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:57:27 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20090621205618.3rskod2kys80wo8s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ab8370d40906211713y75cc6f9asf0d25492084723f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621205618.3rskod2kys80wo8s@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20090621205727.plf3txaffo8kooow@webmail.utoronto.ca>

And by #2 I mean #3 ;)

Quoting lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca:

> I'd like to point out that #2 will simply make it more difficult for
> more oppressive regimes to withhold information from masses, as being
> currently seen in Iran. Maybe effects on places like Iran/Syria,
> China, DPRK, Russia, et. al?
>
> As well, could we maybe push it back to 2017, seeing as we'd have to
> come up for a reason why Barak's popularity would level off after only
> one term, and we could see the global economy in rebound? :P
>
> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>
>> Don't (that is, do NOT) claim countries yet. Please.
>>
>> I'm going to write the timeline very bullheadedly - not that any country is
>> on my attack-list, but there are certain thoughts I've had over the past 48
>> hours that I want to explore.
>>
>> Themes that have hit my radar, not really sure how I'm going to integrate
>> them, but this is fair warning. You may not agree with these in any way -
>> you may well violently disagree with how I express them (or expressing them
>> at all) for each country, but I'm using these as publicly-announced
>> guideposts.
>>
>>  1. The Great Awakening - A standby from the last time that never really got
>> explored, it sounds odd in the wake of the Atheist Bus Campaign and other
>> things. But as we go through the recession, I sense on the macro-level (ie,
>> globally) an uptick in religious belief, with a return to traditional
>> values. It'll vary country by country in how it expresses itself, but it'll
>> show up everywhere. It doesn't -necessarily- benefit who you think it would,
>> either.
>>
>>   2. The Long, Slow Rebound - Ignoring all the alphabet soup descriptors of
>> a recession, I posit that the recession takes until mid-2010 to begin to
>> end, and the recovery is still fragile by 2013.
>>
>>   3. The Twitter society - No, I'm not going to try and figure out how
>> twitter will make its money. But I figure that social-networking sites will
>> continue to explode...with unpredictable effects on society.
>>
>>   These are starter points - I doubtlessly will think up entirely new ideas
>> (some good, some bad, some truly strange) as I sit to do this.
>>
>> I will, you may rest assured, include my share of surprises.
>>
>> Update: About that timeline. Right now, I'm not at my normal computer (It's
>> currently broken - the AC adapter won't stay plugged in). I lost all my
>> notes in a hard drive crash after WAR died the first time, a quick check of
>> it shows.
>>
>> Sigh. I want -one person- to step forward and help me with the mass of
>> writing that looks likely to be ahead.
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>



From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 21:19:08 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:19:08 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>

That sounds uncomfortably like Obama's guns and religion comment from the
campaign trail, but anyway.

Kiiiind of. "Explain America!" is the easy reply to anyone who says
religious belief must decline with improved wealth, but you're also seeing
it in Eastern Europe and Russia. Admittedly, that's happening after
Communism, but in those areas religious belief is coming back with force.

I did not say that #1 was a dramatic swing. It's the beginning of what would
take years to really change.

It's a pendulum swing. Anyone who says the world will become boomingly
religious in 4 years is missing something. It takes longer.

But to say that the recession, one of as deep a depth and long in length as
posited (stretching it to 2010 makes it last fairly long, if I recall my
economic history) might not lead people towards religion and traditionalism,
even in normally secularist areas (perhaps as a reaction to their parents'
secularism)? I don't think you can be so sure.

The fact is, so far as I understand it, that nobody really looked at this
the last time economic conditions were this bad this long (the 1930s), so we
have no idea beyond anecdote.

John
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>   But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've mentioned? My
> uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night for him
> to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were
> shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have thought it
> has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot more
> on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no Monty
> Python jokes intended).
> This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just a
> contribution to argument :D
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/88d64ba0/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 21:32:18 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:32:18 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>

I'd disagree. If you look at credit cycle theory and Austrian Business  
Cycle Theory, they would have seemed to predicted this, so maybe you  
could extrapolate spiritual behaviour during these periods. As well,  
you could draw comparisons to the panic of 1837. Maybe take a look at  
religious response during the 1840s?

Mind you, there was that potato thing, and the subsequent nativist  
response... ;)

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> That sounds uncomfortably like Obama's guns and religion comment from the
> campaign trail, but anyway.
>
> Kiiiind of. "Explain America!" is the easy reply to anyone who says
> religious belief must decline with improved wealth, but you're also seeing
> it in Eastern Europe and Russia. Admittedly, that's happening after
> Communism, but in those areas religious belief is coming back with force.
>
> I did not say that #1 was a dramatic swing. It's the beginning of what would
> take years to really change.
>
> It's a pendulum swing. Anyone who says the world will become boomingly
> religious in 4 years is missing something. It takes longer.
>
> But to say that the recession, one of as deep a depth and long in length as
> posited (stretching it to 2010 makes it last fairly long, if I recall my
> economic history) might not lead people towards religion and traditionalism,
> even in normally secularist areas (perhaps as a reaction to their parents'
> secularism)? I don't think you can be so sure.
>
> The fact is, so far as I understand it, that nobody really looked at this
> the last time economic conditions were this bad this long (the 1930s), so we
> have no idea beyond anecdote.
>
> John
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
> dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>   But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've mentioned? My
>> uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night for him
>> to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were
>> shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have thought it
>> has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot more
>> on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no Monty
>> Python jokes intended).
>> This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just a
>> contribution to argument :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 21:52:10 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:52:10 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, the potato thing kinda breaks all comparisons. I know the Mormons came
out of that time period, but the Great Awakenings from which I named the
phenomenon lasted for decades, so I'm not sure anything truly correlates.

To be honest, though, I'm wary of applying primarily economic theories to
religion. It seems too simplistic.

John

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I'd disagree. If you look at credit cycle theory and Austrian Business
> Cycle Theory, they would have seemed to predicted this, so maybe you
> could extrapolate spiritual behaviour during these periods. As well,
> you could draw comparisons to the panic of 1837. Maybe take a look at
> religious response during the 1840s?
>
> Mind you, there was that potato thing, and the subsequent nativist
> response... ;)
>
> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>
> > That sounds uncomfortably like Obama's guns and religion comment from the
> > campaign trail, but anyway.
> >
> > Kiiiind of. "Explain America!" is the easy reply to anyone who says
> > religious belief must decline with improved wealth, but you're also
> seeing
> > it in Eastern Europe and Russia. Admittedly, that's happening after
> > Communism, but in those areas religious belief is coming back with force.
> >
> > I did not say that #1 was a dramatic swing. It's the beginning of what
> would
> > take years to really change.
> >
> > It's a pendulum swing. Anyone who says the world will become boomingly
> > religious in 4 years is missing something. It takes longer.
> >
> > But to say that the recession, one of as deep a depth and long in length
> as
> > posited (stretching it to 2010 makes it last fairly long, if I recall my
> > economic history) might not lead people towards religion and
> traditionalism,
> > even in normally secularist areas (perhaps as a reaction to their
> parents'
> > secularism)? I don't think you can be so sure.
> >
> > The fact is, so far as I understand it, that nobody really looked at this
> > the last time economic conditions were this bad this long (the 1930s), so
> we
> > have no idea beyond anecdote.
> >
> > John
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
> > dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>   But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've mentioned?
> My
> >> uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night for
> him
> >> to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were
> >> shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have thought
> it
> >> has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot
> more
> >> on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no Monty
> >> Python jokes intended).
> >> This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just a
> >> contribution to argument :D
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/d52426d8/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sun Jun 21 22:06:01 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:06:01 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Well it is ONLY 4 years... it might be safer to just not touch it.

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> Yeah, the potato thing kinda breaks all comparisons. I know the Mormons came
> out of that time period, but the Great Awakenings from which I named the
> phenomenon lasted for decades, so I'm not sure anything truly correlates.
>
> To be honest, though, I'm wary of applying primarily economic theories to
> religion. It seems too simplistic.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'd disagree. If you look at credit cycle theory and Austrian Business
>> Cycle Theory, they would have seemed to predicted this, so maybe you
>> could extrapolate spiritual behaviour during these periods. As well,
>> you could draw comparisons to the panic of 1837. Maybe take a look at
>> religious response during the 1840s?
>>
>> Mind you, there was that potato thing, and the subsequent nativist
>> response... ;)
>>
>> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > That sounds uncomfortably like Obama's guns and religion comment from the
>> > campaign trail, but anyway.
>> >
>> > Kiiiind of. "Explain America!" is the easy reply to anyone who says
>> > religious belief must decline with improved wealth, but you're also
>> seeing
>> > it in Eastern Europe and Russia. Admittedly, that's happening after
>> > Communism, but in those areas religious belief is coming back with force.
>> >
>> > I did not say that #1 was a dramatic swing. It's the beginning of what
>> would
>> > take years to really change.
>> >
>> > It's a pendulum swing. Anyone who says the world will become boomingly
>> > religious in 4 years is missing something. It takes longer.
>> >
>> > But to say that the recession, one of as deep a depth and long in length
>> as
>> > posited (stretching it to 2010 makes it last fairly long, if I recall my
>> > economic history) might not lead people towards religion and
>> traditionalism,
>> > even in normally secularist areas (perhaps as a reaction to their
>> parents'
>> > secularism)? I don't think you can be so sure.
>> >
>> > The fact is, so far as I understand it, that nobody really looked at this
>> > the last time economic conditions were this bad this long (the 1930s), so
>> we
>> > have no idea beyond anecdote.
>> >
>> > John
>> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
>> > dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >>   But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've mentioned?
>> My
>> >> uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night for
>> him
>> >> to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were
>> >> shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have thought
>> it
>> >> has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot
>> more
>> >> on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no Monty
>> >> Python jokes intended).
>> >> This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just a
>> >> contribution to argument :D
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>





From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 22:10:45 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:10:45 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>

The more I think about it, the more that becomes my preference.

Scrapping point 1.
I warn you, though, I work in threes, so I'll have to come up with something
to replace it.:P

*looks over at his Bag of Weird* Eeeny meeny miny moe....
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Well it is ONLY 4 years... it might be safer to just not touch it.
>
> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
>
> > Yeah, the potato thing kinda breaks all comparisons. I know the Mormons
> came
> > out of that time period, but the Great Awakenings from which I named the
> > phenomenon lasted for decades, so I'm not sure anything truly correlates.
> >
> > To be honest, though, I'm wary of applying primarily economic theories to
> > religion. It seems too simplistic.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:32 PM, <lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd disagree. If you look at credit cycle theory and Austrian Business
> >> Cycle Theory, they would have seemed to predicted this, so maybe you
> >> could extrapolate spiritual behaviour during these periods. As well,
> >> you could draw comparisons to the panic of 1837. Maybe take a look at
> >> religious response during the 1840s?
> >>
> >> Mind you, there was that potato thing, and the subsequent nativist
> >> response... ;)
> >>
> >> Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > That sounds uncomfortably like Obama's guns and religion comment from
> the
> >> > campaign trail, but anyway.
> >> >
> >> > Kiiiind of. "Explain America!" is the easy reply to anyone who says
> >> > religious belief must decline with improved wealth, but you're also
> >> seeing
> >> > it in Eastern Europe and Russia. Admittedly, that's happening after
> >> > Communism, but in those areas religious belief is coming back with
> force.
> >> >
> >> > I did not say that #1 was a dramatic swing. It's the beginning of what
> >> would
> >> > take years to really change.
> >> >
> >> > It's a pendulum swing. Anyone who says the world will become boomingly
> >> > religious in 4 years is missing something. It takes longer.
> >> >
> >> > But to say that the recession, one of as deep a depth and long in
> length
> >> as
> >> > posited (stretching it to 2010 makes it last fairly long, if I recall
> my
> >> > economic history) might not lead people towards religion and
> >> traditionalism,
> >> > even in normally secularist areas (perhaps as a reaction to their
> >> parents'
> >> > secularism)? I don't think you can be so sure.
> >> >
> >> > The fact is, so far as I understand it, that nobody really looked at
> this
> >> > the last time economic conditions were this bad this long (the 1930s),
> so
> >> we
> >> > have no idea beyond anecdote.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Sanderson <
> >> > dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>   But haven't we always seen this amongst the groups you've
> mentioned?
> >> My
> >> >> uncle was recently in Africa, and when he came back we had a night
> for
> >> him
> >> >> to show us all his photos, and this of course came up, as there were
> >> >> shrines, churches, pictures and symbols everywhere. I would have
> thought
> >> it
> >> >> has always been the case that those who live a hard life depend a lot
> >> more
> >> >> on religion to help them, I guess, see the bright side of life (no
> Monty
> >> >> Python jokes intended).
> >> >> This isn't so much my view on inserting this into the game, more just
> a
> >> >> contribution to argument :D
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >> War_ooc mailing list
> >> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> >> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/37a688f9/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 23:07:16 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:07:16 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906212007w29f530e3rdd680689c010f25@mail.gmail.com>

Wow I come home from a family do and I have to read nearly 100 posts...  And
to think one email to John last week got this started.  Lol.


Anyways, another thought for a time frame:  The Age of Imperialism, late
1800's, early 1900's?

Or a Cold War scenario?  A traditional post WW2, or set maybe 10-15 years in
the future with a new struggle between the new multi-polar world of India,
China, Brazil, and Russia.

I personally like my latter idea the best, as it is already beginning, and
is only bound to get worse as the struggle for limited and declining
resources continues while populations multiply.
That is a very plausible scenario which would provide a lot of tension and
action in-game, with the great powers carving out their sphere's of
influence.  Maybe an ambitious leader could take a smaller nation with a
glorious past back to greatness?  :p

That could also be an excellent theme.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/bf1c447b/attachment.html 

From ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 21 23:08:24 2009
From: ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com (Dan Garcia)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <49277.32031.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <49277.32031.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <97040.72430.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

I second the "Holy Crap!" sentiment.  I go off to my dad's for Father's Day weekend and I return to find there are 100 emails in my inbox, most (but not all) about WAR...

I really don't have much to say after skimming things, and to be honest don't know how or if I'll be participating as I am working for "The Man" now, and so don't have the time to write and post that I used to, and sleep much of the rest of the time.  I may be most amenable to some kind of limited role if anything, but I'd at least like to continue observing.

Dan G.






________________________________
From: Daniel Sanderson <dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au>
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:04:04 PM
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)


Holy crap! I hate timezones! I've just read seventy-five emails, and I haven't even had breakfast yet!
>
>
>Anyways, my take;
>
>
>The idea of WAR IN SPACE is interesting. It could have been set as Earth decays, perhaps it sees the establishment of several colonies who have relations like that of medieval kingdoms (before country's were country's, ie England, where everyone had different areas they controlled). Perhaps they have to relate for the sake of the exchange of minerals, gas, resources, maybe some control and some don't.
>
>
>I don't think the scale is necessary. I'm a
> realism-fanatic as much as others, but I think people know what's realistic and what's not, and if they post something stupid, the GM can slap them down.
>
>
>Anyways, most of this has already been covered. Again, damn timezones!
>
>
>Dan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/ad67b5d2/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 23:11:29 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:11:29 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] An excellent source of info
Message-ID: <763946e70906212011w172fc9ceg724b377cfbfae013@mail.gmail.com>

Also, I am subscribed to this website:

www.globalresearch.ca

This is a Montreal-based think tank which is independent and is a refreshing
breath of air from the media.  They publish articles from many different
authors, including several well-known intellectuals.
They are some very extensive archives which contain loads of information.

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/309ddf63/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 21 23:14:12 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:14:12 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <763946e70906212007w29f530e3rdd680689c010f25@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906212007w29f530e3rdd680689c010f25@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906212014v746aea14i53bf8c27d979307b@mail.gmail.com>

I forgot to include the USA in that list, I was purely thinking of the BRIC
nations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/67052c5c/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 00:09:49 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:09:49 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
In-Reply-To: <97040.72430.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <49277.32031.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<97040.72430.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906212109u58edae64x95fab445df765bdf@mail.gmail.com>

And if you guys want a really easy-to-construct website, check www.webs.com.


Free website, pretty much as many pages as you want.  Really easy to make.

I made this website last night in 20 minutes: www.thedelegate.webs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/f6ba1c6b/attachment.html 

From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Mon Jun 22 00:34:53 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Holy shit that's a lot of posts (Was Re: Okay, so...)
Message-ID: <884143.33887.qm@web39106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ahh, that was the other thing i was meant to say. Though I'm technologically illiterate myself as far as making websites go (when I was running a sim I had to get someone else to run the website as well) I must say I'm not a fan of the wiki-type pages. Even the basic geocities type pages still look a bit better to me then wiki ones.




      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/62b23f90/attachment-0001.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 11:30:45 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:30:45 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <763946e70906212014v746aea14i53bf8c27d979307b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906212007w29f530e3rdd680689c010f25@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906212014v746aea14i53bf8c27d979307b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906220830t29a33f75k41bba608fba3da63@mail.gmail.com>

New point 1:
---
A deadly rebirth: Terrorism has spiked upward again, this time more often
committed by homegrown types, not internationalized groups. Add to this
what's widely been called a rebirth of racial/ethnic tension worldwide, and
you have a potent brew for civil disorder in much of the world, as nativist
sentiment rises in response against migrants.
This does not mean riots in the streets every day, but more a simmering
tension. The comparison is inexact, but think of the *racial tension* (only)
of the 1960s US, applied globally.
---

Let me know what you all think. I'll post further as I come up with it.

At the moment, special thanks goes out to Buckley, who's agreed to turn my
multiple-email timeline drafting into a single document once it's finished.
This will on an interim basis be the timeline sent to newbies, until we
establish a wiki or a website for permanent posting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/a9d2b64b/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 13:19:25 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:19:25 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906220830t29a33f75k41bba608fba3da63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <327525.62088.qm@web39108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906211819x60fd4595t7d73fecd23a6238c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621213218.j87rlyeta840k48g@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211852g4b75dff9uaf2f47af78a3edc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090621220601.76mb1b8yskksc888@webmail.utoronto.ca>
	<ab8370d40906211910h1798d28cq83e0ac299063b78e@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906212007w29f530e3rdd680689c010f25@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906212014v746aea14i53bf8c27d979307b@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906220830t29a33f75k41bba608fba3da63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906221019n4c5731cem84522eed406dfc32@mail.gmail.com>

i like it. lets do that

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:30 AM, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:

> New point 1:
> ---
> A deadly rebirth: Terrorism has spiked upward again, this time more often
> committed by homegrown types, not internationalized groups. Add to this
> what's widely been called a rebirth of racial/ethnic tension worldwide, and
> you have a potent brew for civil disorder in much of the world, as nativist
> sentiment rises in response against migrants.
>  This does not mean riots in the streets every day, but more a simmering
> tension. The comparison is inexact, but think of the *racial tension* (only)
> of the 1960s US, applied globally.
> ---
>
> Let me know what you all think. I'll post further as I come up with it.
>
> At the moment, special thanks goes out to Buckley, who's agreed to turn my
> multiple-email timeline drafting into a single document once it's finished.
> This will on an interim basis be the timeline sent to newbies, until we
> establish a wiki or a website for permanent posting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/66a4a985/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 13:51:03 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:51:03 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff: Part I
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906221051t24c6b255p2d7a2cb3278db927@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, I've figured out how I'm going to do this.

There'll first be "global" sections, which aren't likely to have dates
attached, describing developments in various worldwide spheres. I'm going to
repeat my global guideposts here, and I'd like readers to keep them in mind.
I'll likely be writing further, regional guideposts, which I'm going to use
with country timelines (written by players!) to unify stuff, edit them (the
country timelines) to fit country timelines into a cohesive whole, and so
forth.
---
1. A deadly rebirth: Terrorism has spiked upward again, this time more often
committed by homegrown types, not internationalized groups. Less
spectacular, but more of a constant drumbeat. Add to this what's widely been
called a rebirth of racial/ethnic tension worldwide, in part *caused* by the
uptick of terrorism, and you have a potent brew for civil disorder in much
of the world, as nativist sentiment rises in response against migrants.

This does not mean riots in the streets every day, but more a simmering
tension. The comparison is inexact, but think of the *racial tension* (only)
of the 1960s US, applied globally.

2. The Long, Slow Rebound - Ignoring all the alphabet soup descriptors of a
recession, I posit that the recession takes until mid-2010 to begin to end,
and the recovery is still fragile by (2013 - we can stretch things out and
actually do a restart in 2017 if people prefer, but I'm writing assuming a
start date of 2013 for now - though making changes wouldn't be too hard (I
can just continue the trend-lines and add in new stuff that I think of),
I'll go with the consensus of the group).

3. The Twitter society - No, I'm not going to try and figure out how twitter
will make its money. But I figure that social-networking sites will continue
to explode...with unpredictable effects on society.
---
Further guidelines:

Unless otherwise stated, notable personalities (interpreted flexibly) have
-not- died in the timeline. This is a rule I plan on applying unless
presented with extremely convincing reasons not to, because I really do not
want to be "calling" deaths and then seeing them happen; it sounds
superstitious? Well, it *is*. My game, dammit, and I have enough to freak
myself out with without worrying if the Secret Service (or whoever) will
come knocking because WAR was too right. I will make exceptions, but the
choice will remain mine. (Deaths after the start of play are another matter
entirely, worry not - I don't see the same likelihood for being right (or
being confused with being right) after play starts.) Basically, when writing
up timelines, please let me be the arbiter of life and death.

With that, on with the show:
---
The March of Progress?: Technology and science events

Obviously, a long, slow recession doesn't help the progress of technology.
Not to say that technology hasn't advanced over 3 and a half - 4 years, but
there are very few "Big Things" that could be developed.

However, things have developed.

In 2011, researchers announced that they had managed to sidestep firmly the
ethical and moral quandaries of embryonic stem cells - Induced pluripotent
skin cells, basically skin cells tricked into becoming stem cells, have been
proven safe and are used for most of the purposes for which embryonic stem
cells were used.

In 2012, stage III clinical trials began on several artificial blood
substitutes for emergency usage, at locations around the world. As of 2013,
signs look promising for eventual success, but trials will continue for a
while yet before regulatory approval is granted.

The 2011 Model Year saw the (slightly delayed) release of the Chevy Volt -
Toyota came out with a competing car for 2012, and most other manufacturers
got their own plug-in hybrids out on the market by the 2013 model year.
Plug-in hybrids, it should be noted, are still somewhat expensive - they
are, however, showing up in increasing numbers on the streets of Western
cities, and 2014 is slated to see the first versions for performance uses
(police, taxi, etc) hit the markets.

It should be noted, as an aside, that GM exited Chapter 11 and returned to
the stock exchanges on October 1, 2011 - all told, a hefty profit was made
by the US and Canadian Governments and the UAW. So much so that it took
government intervention for UAW not to try to repeat the trick with other
manufacturers; even a Democratic administration didn't really like the idea
of the unions playing at being corporate raiders, and said as much. Nor, for
that matter, did rank-and-file union members, who also said as much.
Chrysler was much the same, though it took only until 2010 for Chrysler-Fiat
to exit government supervision.

NASA's Space Shuttle replacement, the Orion, is scheduled to make its first
flight in June 2013, years ahead of schedule - the ISS still flies, though
landside bickering prevents anybody from planning missions to the Moon or
Mars.

The closing weeks of December 2012 brought news guaranteed to start trouble:
Viable babies at a low point of 21 weeks and 3 days are now delivered on a
regular basis, according to the journal Obstetrics and Neonatology in a
literature review; such infants still have great difficulties to overcome,
but the basic viability of the fetus at 21 weeks is almost a settled medical
fact.

---
Next up comes the first of the regional writeups.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/d4dcd856/attachment.html 

From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Mon Jun 22 20:24:43 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
Message-ID: <659142.95951.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That point sounds viable. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the news here in Australia, but we've got the racial tension happening already! One of Australia's biggest industries is education, we have thousands of overseas students come to Australia every year to study. Recently, there's been a spate of attacks on Indian students, which has resulted in calls from the Indian President and Prime Minister to ours, and resulted in our PM putting his recently-appointed National Security Advisor in charge of coming up with a solution (this is a brand new position, and probably not what NSAs in other countries would be put in charge of, but I guess the man needs somehting to do!). Now the Indians are fighting back in vigilante-type actions. And, of course, there's always been tension in parts of Sydney between people of Middle Eastern background versus dumb white surfer boys!


      Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/eb133094/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Mon Jun 22 21:21:23 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:51:23 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Countries, timeline stuff, etc.
In-Reply-To: <659142.95951.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <659142.95951.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906221821i48723b1ao55b1d3f09f560849@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed, what we would think of highly developed countries experience
this type of problem. It's much more subtle here in Canada because we
tend to think of racism and ethnic/religious discrimination as an
'American' problem, but in reality it exists here as well and we like
to turn a blind eye to it.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Daniel
Sanderson<dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> That point sounds viable. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the
> news here in Australia, but we've got the racial tension happening already!
> One of Australia's biggest industries is education, we have thousands of
> overseas students come to Australia every year to study. Recently, there's
> been a spate of attacks on Indian students, which has resulted in calls from
> the Indian President and Prime Minister to ours, and resulted in our PM
> putting his recently-appointed National Security Advisor in charge of coming
> up with a solution (this is a brand new position, and probably not what NSAs
> in other countries would be put in charge of, but I guess the man needs
> somehting to do!). Now the Indians are fighting back in vigilante-type
> actions. And, of course, there's always been tension in parts of Sydney
> between people of Middle Eastern background versus dumb white surfer boys!
>
> ________________________________
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how.
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 01:22:32 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:22:32 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>

And on we go. Picking Europe to start with purely at random. Yes, I know it
looks spare - I must confess to a case of writer's block. If you have ideas
for additions to the events, throw them at me.
---
European regional themes (in addition to the global themes):

1. The EU has not died. It is, however, adrift. The failure of the Lisbon
Treaty in Irish referenda in October 2009, for the second successive time,
killed that effort dead. Expansion and deepening of the European project is
stalled, and the EU's mediocre performance in responding to the recession
didn't help its credibility.
2. Multiculturalism has been edged out in many places by what's being called
a new rebirth of national identities - a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment
comes along with that, but also increasing movements to both repatriate
powers from the EU and to restore the power of national governments.
3. Paradoxically, despite only turning in a middling performance for most of
the war, NATO has come out of Afghanistan (which wrapped up, in a military
sense, in 2011, though trainers and support troops for the Afghan military
and police remain, along with civilian development workers) strengthened as
an alliance - Mostly due to Taliban attacks virtually everywhere throughout
Afghanistan during 2009, which made nowhere particularly 'safe' before NATO
managed to turn the tide in early 2010. The fact is that once the Taliban
made the whole region a combat zone, the distinction between allied nations
largely evaporated, aided by the increasingly-outspoken nature of returning
troops, no longer content with national caveats and what was largely termed
the politicians' "timidness" in the press.
4. A revolt against politics: The often-ineffectual nature of European
politicians' responses to the recession, combined with scandals such as the
MPs' expenses issue in Britain, has brought the public view of politics to a
new low. Extremist and generally fringe parties have taken advantage of
this, though none have yet achieved more than modest gains.
---

And now, some events, many thanks to Dylan for helping write most of these:

 October 2009: Lisbon Treaty fails in Irish referendum.
 May, 2010: The newly elected German Chancellor, Gerhard Kretschmer, is
assassinated by a neo-fascist group as he leaves the Bundestag.  German
forces begin a crackdown on neo-fascists across the country and in response,
these groups stage demonstrations in every German city.  In Berlin, several
members of the Bundestag are kidnapped and held hostage, and one is found
dead in a park a week later.  Many of the demonstrators target Turkish homes
and businesses and two Turks are found beaten to death in Hamburg.
Demonstrations through Poland and Belgium occur to protest both the actions
of the neo-fascists and the crackdown on personal freedoms by German
authorities.
 July 2011: Race riots erupt in Paris after French security forces arrested
4 Algerian men accused of plotting a terrorist action.  Tensions ignite and
the demonstrations by non-French people turn the suburbs of Paris and other
cities in France into a veritable warzone for a week.  Cars are burnt, small
bombs go off, buildings vandalized, and French bystanders attacked.  Various
smaller demonstrations also begin in Rotterdam and in the large cities of
Germany, aimed at the Turkish immigrant communities in those countries,
although the riots are nowhere near as bad as in the slums of Paris.
August 2011: 3 Simultaneous truck bombs go off in Rome.  68 people are
injured and 35 are killed by the explosions.  Each explosion occured at a
major Roman landmark, one just outside the Coliseum, one in the square in
front of the Pantheon, and one on the Via della Conciliazione near the
Vatican.  Italian security forces blame a terrorist cell of Lybian
immigrants living in Rome as the prime suspects, although they are unable to
find anything more.
April, 2012: The Ukrainian government has started to supress violent
seperatist movements in the eastern portion of the country, especially
around Kharkov.  These groups have memberships now reaching into the
hundreds, and the military is called in the keep the peace.  Links to
Russian agents are rumored but unconfirmed. Meanwhile, in May, the Chechen
conflict heats up again as fighters return from Iraq and Afghanistan to
continue the fight.  The British ambassador in Moscow is shot and wounded by
a Chechen in the Moscow business district in early June.
July 2012: On 12 July, an assassination attempt is made against Queen
Elizabeth II by a member of the Ulster Defense Association at Balmoral - the
attack is unsuccessful, and the Queen is unhurt, but one policeman in her
protective detail is killed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/5431e6e6/attachment-0001.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 01:30:15 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:30:15 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>

Durrrr. This is supposed to be an attack by a deranged member of the UK
Republican Movement.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:

> July 2012: On 12 July, an assassination attempt is made against Queen
> Elizabeth II by a member of the Ulster Defense Association at Balmoral - the
> attack is unsuccessful, and the Queen is unhurt, but one policeman in her
> protective detail is killed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/0ee4b40d/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 01:31:53 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:31:53 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906222231j24ba9b36nd0ecc39c2e7bacd5@mail.gmail.com>

My pleasure. :)

I can help you with more at another time for the other continents if you
like.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/8937b3ea/attachment.html 

From martellian at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 23 02:53:13 2009
From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:53:13 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DS3518537FC69F08F3B0ADAC6360@phx.gbl>

Would be glad to help with Asia there John. Not even thinking of playing Japan either. =)


From: John Penta 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:30 PM
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com 
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe


Durrrr. This is supposed to be an attack by a deranged member of the UK Republican Movement.


On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:

  July 2012: On 12 July, an assassination attempt is made against Queen Elizabeth II by a member of the Ulster Defense Association at Balmoral - the attack is unsuccessful, and the Queen is unhurt, but one policeman in her protective detail is killed.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090622/45e5b7bb/attachment.html 

From michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 09:10:44 2009
From: michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com (Michael Downey)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:40:44 -0230
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
In-Reply-To: <BAY124-DS3518537FC69F08F3B0ADAC6360@phx.gbl>
References: <ab8370d40906222222wcc1aee0j925b64b803bbbd0f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab8370d40906222230j9f897dfi20d8666c867337d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY124-DS3518537FC69F08F3B0ADAC6360@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <6b6ab8a70906230610r635fe629s4151d4ad8034259c@mail.gmail.com>

Well as I am thinking about being a country in Asia I can help with
the Americas.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Ian Martell<martellian at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Would be glad to help with Asia there John. Not even thinking of playing
> Japan either. =)
> From: John Penta
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:30 PM
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part II: Europe
> Durrrr. This is supposed to be an attack by a deranged member of the UK
> Republican Movement.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> July 2012: On 12 July, an assassination attempt is made against Queen
>> Elizabeth II by a member of the Ulster Defense Association?at Balmoral?- the
>> attack is unsuccessful, and the Queen is unhurt, but one policeman in her
>> protective detail is killed.
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 11:54:02 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:54:02 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline side-chatter
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906230854w58760b4fw662e96e554e0b10e@mail.gmail.com>

While I appreciate all the help on the IC end - the OOC end needs doing too!

I *really* want to see help in terms of web (if that means we set up a Wiki,
on Wikia or elsewhere, that's good too - I just don't want to be left
setting it up, as I suck at visual stuff like wiki/web design) and
advertising (including banner ads if anyone has the chops for that!) - I
want us to launch with those done so (particularly the web presence, be that
a Wiki or otherwise) it can all be kept up sanely as the game progresses.

So far as what countries you want - regardless of my begging not to, some
people already have sent in their country choices. I read, I sighed, I
deleted by accident.

Don't resend them yet. Here's why:

You might not want any of those countries after I'm done with the timelines.

How I'm dividing things - I will write up general themes for each region,
like I did with Europe. I will work with ONE of you for each region, over
AIM, on doing events - the intent being they're events with regional impact,
leaving room for country timelines to work with. One person can indeed do
multiple regions.

How I'm dividing the world, a draft plan for timeline-writing only:

For sanity's sake, North America will be the US (and possessions!), Canada,
and Greenland. Only two countries (plus Greenland) because they're the home
countries of most of the playerbase, hence I'll be unsurprised if scads of
events come up. Mexico will be lumped in with Latin America, which will be
Central and South America too. The Caribbean (which will include Bermuda for
completeness) will be handled as its own region - a smallish region, but
necessary because of the scads of foreign dependencies.

Africa is, um. There's arguments to be made about splitting it into
Sub-Saharan Africa and either mixing North Africa with the Mideast or
treating it on its own. Opinions welcome.

Asia: Afghanistan will be included with the Mideast, as will Turkey and
Cyprus. The Stans will feature as Central Asia. The rest of the Indian
Subcontinent (including Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, etc) will feature as South
Asia. Australia and New Zealand will lead off Papua New Guinea, East Timor,
and the Pacific island states in Oceania. Indonesia will feature in the Far
East along with more usual suspects, as will the Phillippines.

I may combine regions if there aren't enough events.

I'm going to most immediately pick Ian to help do the Far East. Ian, expect
draft regional themes in your mailbox today - contact me on AIM.

Mike, Ian won the coin toss for the Far East. Pick your next most favorite
region, let me know via AIM.

The regional themes are meant for the use of timeline writers for both the
regional timelines and individual country writeups, hence why I don't want
to just dictate them - ideally, they'll ring as plausible as my more global
themes. Feel free to suggest themes of your own devising for your regions.

John

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well as I am thinking about being a country in Asia I can help with
> the Americas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/9e19fb76/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 16:10:49 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:10:49 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part III: Middle East and North Africa
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906231310p797e2681q711cb23fa5a932e2@mail.gmail.com>

Regional Themes:
1. Credo: If you're going to play the Mideast, you cannot avoid religion.
Fundamentalism will always maintain *an* appeal, but less so to the new
generation. They'll always be conservative, there'll never be gay rights
marches in Saudi, but it'll be less imposed, more societally-encouraged.
Similarly, Israeli society is likely to get rather more religious, but
finally shunning some of the more extreme elements...Though not without
bumps in the road for either.
2. Terror's revival: Namely, there's an uptick in terror from home-grown
groups throughout the Middle East, as economic frustrations and alienation
among the young express themselves through violence. In some cases, it gets
positively cannibalistic (figuratively speaking) as events near civil war.
3. Baksheesh: The term is Persian in origin, but the concept is fairly
universal. Graft, bribes, kickbacks, influence-peddling: Such is the
currency of the Middle East, with as much being determined by relationships
as by notional policy.
----
Events, written with help of Dylan:

October 2009: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas assassinated by Hamas
sniper team in Jericho. Palestinian society shortly descends into
tit-for-tat killings (large-scale violence remaining occasional) as both the
Hamas government in the Gaza Strip and the Fatah government in the West Bank
splinter into clan-based violence.
December 2009: Israel completes the West Bank barrier, to global
denunciation. Iraqi elections proceed smoothly.
January 2010: Lebanon nearly descends into civil war after the Lebanese Army
attempts to disarm Hezbollah. In the end, Hezbollah is reduced to the
possession of small arms only, with heavier armaments and fortifications
taken over by the Lebanese Army.
August 2010: Gulf oil production enters a temporary massive decline as two
refineries are bombed and shutdown for repairs; one in Qatar and one in
Kuwait.  Industry analysts say oil production could remain low for up to two
years as the facilities are rebuilt.  Oil prices spike in response and
financiers make millions investing in various exchanges.  Meanwhile, public
anger and dissatisfaction continue to simmer in countries dependent on oil
imports as consumer prices rise rapidly.
January 2011: US forces exit Iraq, marking the official end of Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
September 2011: NATO combat troops exit Afghanistan as Taliban efforts are
focused on Pakistan, handing over control to a battle-hardened Afghan
National Army and Afghan National Police. Small numbers of trainers and
support troops remain to support ANA modernization.
February 2012: Israeli Ambassador to Cairo fatally shot by renegade Egyptian
police.
August 2012: Turkish military ordered to withdraw from Northern Cyprus by
AKP-led government; the island reunifies in October. A coup is feared,
amidst massive protests by secularist and nationalist elements, but does not
materialize.
October 2012:  Several bombs rip through Riyadh in Saudi Arabia while no
less than 6 Princes of the Saudi royal family are murdered across the
country.  Many cities shut down as the monarchy clamps down even further in
an attempt to maintain control of the country.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/fc1eed0a/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 17:05:43 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:05:43 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] As we chug through the timelines - other issues
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906231405g6dcb65dfo650f601a8b0f14a8@mail.gmail.com>

First off:

Many thanks to Mike, Dylan, and Ian for their assistance with the timelines
for Latin America (Mike), Europe and the Middle East (Dylan), and the Far
East (Ian):

Next up:

Okay...I've decided on a few things:

1. I have neither the time to learn HTML, nor any of the skills needed to
maintain a website.
2. A wiki is attractive, but: On Wikia, it looks like WAR is taken, unless
someone has an idea. I don't have the money for a domain (or any *clue* how
to set up a Wiki outside of Wikia).
3. As such, I'm basically begging for help.

A similar situation exists with advertising:

I have ideas on where to advertise, but they're very limited...and they
didn't particularly work last time.

I really have no *idea* how to handle advertising. We need newbies, but
where do we look for them?

These are two tasks we need people handling before we launch..At least if we
want new players, anyway..

Third:

Regions left that need timelines:

Caribbean, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Oceania.

Once the last timeline is done, probably by the weekend, I'll open up the
gates for country-grabbing and start trying to figure out a good date for
our Point of Divergence.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/935aa8a5/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 18:12:25 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:12:25 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, part IV: Latin America
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906231512h67f9bba9q8a39ba97b9f860e2@mail.gmail.com>

Mike, of course, does things differently from everybody. Conditions in Latin
America follow:
---
Latin America in 2013 is very similar to what it was four years ago; a
region with huge economic and political potential but still dogged by
numerous
internal conflicts and widespread social problems. The recession
slowed growth considerably in almost
every country in the Southern part of the Americas and even caused
economic contraction in several others. As a result, crime and corruption
are
as prevalent as ever. The production and distribution of narcotics has
become more serious; an impoverished part of the world to begin
with, the economic slowdown has forced many people to turn to the drug
trade to support themselves, as well as increasing domestic
consumption among despondent Latin American youths.

Brazil, possessing the largest and most developed economy in Latin
America, has emerged somewhat unscathed from the recession. Increased
industrial output and the development of offshore oil deposits have
boosted the gross national income, though the per capita income of the
average Brazilian is the same as it was four years ago. Furthermore
government corruption, especially at the lower to mid-levels, has
hampered growth in the financial and service sectors. Street crime is
still prevalent and the increase in the South American drug trade has
caused significant headaches for Brazilian authorities; Brazilian drug
cartels are generally regarded by the DEA and Europol as the largest
and most sophisticated syndicates, quickly becoming the top
suppliers of ecstasy and other designer narcotics to the United
States, Canada and EU.

Conditions in Chile and Argentina are similar to those of Brazil. Though
far from ravaged by the recession, growth has been painfully slow and
corruption
is on the rise. The tourist industry has suffered particularly in
Argentina, with traditional tourist destinations such as Beunos Aires
and Cordoba seeing an increase in street crime, especially armed robbery.

Columbia has suffered more extensively; though the FARC is now effectively
defunct, the country is still experiencing considerable instability.
Corruption of the government and police runs extremely high and the
cocaine cartels are behind it, pumping coke and even heroin into the
hungry and lucrative North American markets. Acts of violence and terrorism
against anyone and everyone who threatens the extremely vicious
criminal organizations is rampant, and the corrupt and impotent central
government seems powerless to stop it. This in turn has led to a
backlash of vigilantism by angry Columbia citizens.

Hugo Chavez has entrenched himself as the undisputed dictator-for-life
of Venezuela. All elections are widely considered shams by the
international community and violence against critics and opponents of
Chavez are widespread. Chavez has continued to pursue a policy of
hard-line socialism for the Venezuelan economy and nationalized or
banned almost all 'gringo' companies. Foreign investment has fallen to
almost
zero, as has tourism. Unfortunately this rise in xenophobia and poor
economic planning, combined with a decreased demand in Venezuelan oil
due to increased Brazilian output, has resulted in a considerable
deterioration in the standard of living. Many are beginning to compare
Chavez to Robert Mugabe and Venezuela to Zimbabwe.
The governments of Ecuador and Bolivia have closely followed Venezuela's
path of socialism and 'gringos out!' rhetoric, though not with the
same fervor. Opposition is still more vocal and successful in these
two countries, although state violence against dissenters is on the
rise. A side effect of Venezuela's poor economic performance is
that Chavez is not able to bankroll his allies in foreign countries to
anywhere near the same extent as he was before, thus hampering dreams
of a socialist revolution throughout the rest of Latin America.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090623/303722ff/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Wed Jun 24 11:33:44 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:33:44 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, part V: The Far East
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906240833h50a89807l85c4ea6ae9b3d082@mail.gmail.com>

Regional Themes:
1. Unrest, unrest!: The recession puts pressure on governments everywhere,
but nowhere more so than in the Far East, as export-led economies get hit
hard by the long, drawn-out length of the recession, and the credit crunch.
Country-specific factors might accentuate matters, but the general idea is
that things are rapidly becoming unstable across the region.
2. Old Habits Die Hard: Even in the most developed countries in the region,
corruption (in varying forms) is a huge problem. In a networked age,
corruption becomes ever more of a present burden upon populations; they know
now that its happening, it's not isolated, and that it?s widespread, but
even the visibility of it doesn't kill it off, crushing popular trust of
institutions.
3. A Matter of Faith: Religion is a major issue in the region, whether it?s
expressed in extremism, a background noise of the culture, or violently
suppressed it has made a deep impact on the lives of people in the region
and shows through in their actions. Amoung the results of this impact are
the steadfast resistance of suppressed religions in China to government
restrictions, a deepening of religious divides in places like the
Philippines and Indonesia and the expansion of new faiths on old ground such
as the Christian trend in South Korea. No matter what form it takes religion
matters in the Far East and will be hard to ignore even amidst the other
crises in the region.
----
Events, written with help of Ian:

August 2009: Large scale protests take place in Tokyo and other major
Japanese cities the protests centre on the mismanagement of the Japanese
pension system and reluctance of the government to provide real solutions to
the declining population.
September 2009: The Japanese Democratic Party makes large strides in the
Lower House elections and dangerously reducing the hold of the LDP on
government. Prime Minister Taro Aso resigns.
January 2010: A truck bomb linked to Jemaah Islamiyah detonates at a resort
in Bali Indonesia, and kills 137, and injures approximately 200, mostly
western tourists. Indonesian government promises a crackdown and while
several arrests are made there is little progress in combating the
organization in a meaningful way.
April 2010: Religious groups organize major protests in China pushing for
more religious freedoms. The Chinese government cracks down on the
protesters and despite their best efforts to contain images of the crackdown
some get out and further hurt Chinese interests overseas.
June 2010: Malaysian pirates enter into a stand off with Chinese forces
after the hijacking of a Chinese super tanker in the Strait of Malacca. The
Chinese with permission of the Malaysian government storm the ship and three
hostages are killed along with all the pirates. Insurance prices rise for
ships passing through the Strait, increasing the costs of oil shipped from
the Middle East, and forcing East Asian governments to seek alternate
sources of oil. Serious efforts are made by the local governments as well as
the governments of Japan, China and South Korea to combat piracy in the
region.
August 2010: The bombing of the refineries in Qatar and Kuwait exacerbate
the region?s fuel issues. Prices sky rocket, especially in the region?s
island nations. There is considerable speculation about the Spratly Island
dispute heating up as the nations involve begin to seek out new sources of
oil and gas.
January 2011: Corruption scandals, allegations of a rigged 2010 election and
mismanagement of the fuel crisis are stated as the cause of a coup attempt
against President Arroyo. The attempt is almost successful and there is
limited fighting in Manila and outlying regions. Following the coup an
unsuccessful assassination attempt is made against the President, the
culprit is discovered to be a frustrated citizen as popular support for the
President drops to new lows.
May 2011: May Day labour rallies throughout Japan decry the current
government?s corrupt practices and last throughout Golden Week. Similar
protests in South Korea are met with more hostility as the day?s communist
connotations spark fear in the government of North Korean influence. Several
organizers are questioned by the police, and the demonstrations last several
weeks in major Korean cities.
June 2011: Riding a tide of returning to traditional Japanese values
nationalist elements in the LDP seize the reigns of power during their
election for party President.
September 2011: Shenyang Mutiny. PLA officers near Shenyang refuse orders in
protest of distribution of profits from PLA business interests. The mutiny
is quickly resolved and brushed under the table however the incident is
extremely embarrassing to the Party and PLA, a number of senior members of
both are forced to resign.
January 2012: A survey reports that 40% of South Koreans claim Christianity
as their religion, making it the largest religious group in the country.
March 2012: Several bombs explode in downtown Manila and a car bomb destroys
a Catholic Church on the southern island of Mindanao during Sunday Mass,
marking a more violent trend in the country?s Islamic insurgency. Crack
downs follow and are ineffective.
April 2012: The Chinese government?s failure to release prisoners taken in
the 2010 demonstrations causes new demonstrations. The Chinese government
attempts to negotiate, however these fall through and force is used to bring
the protesters in line. China again does it?s best to keep the whole thing
quiet.
November 2012: Defections of LDP party members to the DPJ or to new splinter
parties cause a no-confidence motion to be passed against the sitting
Japanese government, forcing an election, scheduled for January
2013. Pundits speculate it may be possible for the LDP to actually lose this
time and a new party to take the reigns.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090624/6bf3e5f1/attachment-0001.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Wed Jun 24 13:24:00 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:24:00 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] I has success! WAR seeks webgeek.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906241024m44ae728at88fab4ec2d167de9@mail.gmail.com>

Okay folks.

I has success to report.

Through various contacts, I was able to figure out that Wikidot (wikidot.com)
has pretty much exactly what we need for a WAR website, it seems, helpfully
set up through a Wiki format. It doesn't -look- like the average Wiki,
anyway. It's also free, no small thing when I have no money to spend.

However.

Once I sign up and set people as Site Gods, that's basically the end of my
technical knowledge and my motivation.

Hence, if you're at all interested in being WAR's Webgeek, speak up here.
Even if you have no knowledge, so long as you have motivation and some
graphics skill, you have what we need.

It's preferred, all other things considered, that the webgeek be a player,
but that's not something I'm going to insist on - this is really meant to be
a short-term "set up the site" thing. The way I imagine things, this being a
Wiki should make it easy for players to do things like set up and maintain
their own country pages once the webgeek sets everything up for the site as
a whole.

If I had money, I'd be willing to pay a small amount of real money (like
$10/month) in compensation. Unfortunately, money is something I lack at the
moment; I'm on disability and living with my parents, and going to likely be
doing paralegal school in the fall. As such, all I can offer is the chance
to learn and the chance to assemble a portfolio of your work on the site.

You basically get total creative freedom on the initial setup (I can't say
that WAR has ever had a graphical style), too. I have ideas as to what I
want the site to -contain-, but no real idea how it would best be presented.

(Why use a Wiki? Because at the outside, it means the site doesn't die if
the webgeek quits.)

Additionally, I discovered that pbem2.com has a banner exchange. If anybody
has graphics skills enough to do banner ads for WAR, the same offer applies.

If multiple people want to be the webgeek, we can split duties, or do a
code-off, or something.

Just so long as I can not worry about it.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090624/19003e85/attachment.html 

From iain at iain-waddell.co.uk  Thu Jun 25 06:55:41 2009
From: iain at iain-waddell.co.uk (Iain)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:55:41 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] AIM
Message-ID: <96D2294CD331410BB4617417D5ED45E5@iainw>

Just to let you guys know I've got AIM back, as it looked like that was how
everyone was going to be keeping in touch and I only had MSN.

 

New screen-name is NurseIain (a bit more universal to use rather than
character names lol)

 

Iain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090625/b6b6e149/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Thu Jun 25 13:10:38 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:10:38 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, part VI: Sub-Saharan Africa
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906251010l3110e747ud61e4248ab16779d@mail.gmail.com>

Couldn't think up much of anything for this region, so I'm leaving it for
whoever wants to play a country in this region to work with me on further
events, and posting what I have basically for accountability.
---
Regional themes for Sub-Saharan Africa:

1. Corruption: A big, big problem in Africa, and it gets expressed in every
way imaginable. Bribery, favoritism, nepotism, and more...all feature.
However, there's an increasing intolerance for it among the citizenry.
2. AIDS orphans: By 2010, there will be millions in Africa, however you
count them. A definite issue, because in many cases these children (some of
whom have AIDS themselves, and some who don't) make up a massive part of the
younger generations in African countries, and many have grown up on the
streets. Plus, in most African countries, the population is largely under
30.
3. Islands amidst seas: Islands of prosperity amidst seas of deadening
poverty. A common image of Africa, and one not without truth. In such an
environment, society (and even economics, ironically) is often
mind-bendingly dynamic - all the while often keeping in touch with
traditional values.
4. Weak states: Most state structures in Sub-Saharan Africa are weak and
easily subverted; it's the rare state that is actually near collapse,
however. At least, so far..
---
Events:

June-July 2010: South Africa hosts the World Cup - Brazil winds up the
winner, after a hard-fought game against a rather unlikely opponent:
Australia. Generally speaking, the event is a success, though not much of a
relief from global instability.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090625/605b48a0/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Thu Jun 25 15:45:25 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:45:25 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Daily WAR restart update for 25 June 2009
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906251245l4c93463ckc278fcbd8f3e5436@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, a different title to capture everybody's attention.:)

I figure that it's a good point for daily-ish updates on the process of
restarting WAR. Wide variety of things being covered today, so I'm sorry if
this is a bit long.
---
Timelines:

Thusfar, with substantial assistance from Mike, Ian, and Dylan, I have
timelines for Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, the Far East, and
Latin America. South Asia is currently under Buckley's...eye, let us say,
and should be posted tonight or tomorrow.

Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania (which includes Australia and New Zealand)
are being skipped for now - as I noted with Sub-Saharan Africa, I couldn't
think up many, really any, events for that region. Oceania I'm passing over
even more broadly: The diversity of conditions between the larger Australia
and New Zealand and the small Pacific Island nations means I couldn't even
think up regional themes, which I use to guide myself (and anyone helping)
through event-writing. As we get players, I'll pull out my notes and work
with those players who take up countries in those regions to devise events.

The Caribbean I'm passing over as well: While it has independent island
states, very few are likely to be played...and it has plenty of foreign
dependencies. If someone wants to play one of these countries, they can, and
I'll work with them for event-writing when that time comes.

North America (originally the US and Canada, but Mexico will probably be
joined in) I'm split on: It could be something I do myself, or something I
grab someone to help me on. Possibly multiple people, it really depends on
what kind of response this gets.

Because seemingly everybody has asked: I'm basically not going to cover Iran
at the moment, because the situation is so fluid and I'd rather not be
lapped by real life just as we start.

In any event, I fully expect (barring something truly unexpected) timelines
to be done by Saturday night at the latest, but more likely tomorrow
night/early hours of Saturday. It'd be difficult to imagine a situation
where I don't have the last timeline (for North America) in your mailbox by
0800 US EDT on Saturday. Possible, but difficult. Once that's done, I'll set
the point of divergence and open the doors for country-picking.
---
About country-picking:

How i'm going to do this: So nobody loses out due to time zones, work, etc.:
We're going to do it largely on AIM, in a buddy chat (a text chat). I'll
announce a tentative date and time (likely within 48 hours of the last
timeline posted, so sometime this weekend) of when we're going to hold the
chat. Come with your 3 country picks. We'll lay them out and sort out any
cases where two people are going for the same country.

After the chat wraps up, I'll post who showed up and what countries they
wound up with to this list. For those people, that'll fix the countries they
get. People who didn't show up will send me their 3 privately. I'll then
work with individual players on country timelines.

---
Point of divergence:

I want to wait on a few things that might crop up over the next bit of time,
so I'm waffling between a POD of 1 July and 4 July (Wednesday or Saturday of
next week, basically).
---
Start of play date:

It'll really depend on when country timelines are done. For simplicity, I'm
thinking that if we get everybody done before POD, we'll start play on that
date.

If not, I'll set one for after POD.
---
Wiki wiki wiki:

I'm not going to hold things up on this account, but if you know MediaWiki
and have even vague skills with graphic-y stuff, I could really use a
webgeek to set up what is likely to be the WAR Wiki-and-webpage. It'll be
fairly vital to advertising efforts - people just sort of expect a webpage.
Because it uses MediaWiki, you don't need to know HTML - you just need to
have an eye for how things look.

---
Advertising:

Speaking of advertising, if anybody wants to write ad blurbs, do ad banners,
or whatever, go right ahead...Please. I'm not good at advertising. Send em
to me when you're done with em, and feel free to post em where you think
they might fit (and get eyeballs).
---

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090625/8907eb53/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Thu Jun 25 19:36:23 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:36:23 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, part VII: South Asia
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906251636q734b2971jb4bea973422abba9@mail.gmail.com>

Regional Themes:

1. Corruption: Like Africa, corruption is a big issue here. It's all the
more shocking, though, because this region used to (in large part) be
British India, with a civil service that was a point of serious pride to the
locals precisely for not being corrupt and being generally efficient.
2. A messy democracy: India is the biggest example here, but Pakistan fits
too - Democracy in South Asia, where it exists, is big, boisterous, dirty,
and messy. There remain yawning gaps between rich and poor, though both of
the major countries in the region have growing middle classes.
3. Allahu Akhbar! Hindutva!: Religion, caste in India, ethnicity...There are
a lot of dividing lines in the region. Plenty of ways in which conflicts,
within and between states, could happen.

Events:

August 2009: Hamid Karzai wins another term as President of Afghanistan
after chaotic, yet generally free and fair, elections.
September 2009: Taliban begin sustained counterattacks against Pakistani
forces in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Northwest
Frontier Province, aided by Al-Qaeda fighters from outside Pakistan and
other associates.
November 2009: Taliban once again reach within 60 kilometers of Islamabad.
December 2009: Seeking to focus resources on the fight against the Taliban,
Pakistan begins a series of confidence-building measures with India,
including mutual redeployments of forces away from the Indo-Pakistani
border.
February 2010: President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari makes the first State
Visit of a Pakistani President to New Delhi, followed by a visit of Indian
Prime Minister Mammohan Singh to Islamabad in July 2010, marking a major
breakthrough in Indo-Pakistani relations.
March 2010: NATO forces in Afghanistan report making substantial progress
against the Taliban; Pakistani forces engage in near-constant battles
against Taliban fighters, with some success.
August 2010: Pakistani President Zardari is seriously wounded by an
assassination attempt by the Taliban in Islamabad.
November 2010: Riots by Hindu nationalists occur across India, most
particularly targeting Muslims and Christians, but also other minorities.
Thousands are reported dead.
April 2011: NATO and the Afghan government declare the Taliban in
Afghanistan contained. NATO forces complete the final turnover of day-to-day
operations to the Afghan government in June 2011, and the final combat units
of ISAF pull out by August 2011.
September 2011: Riots in Colombo mark the final failure of the Disarmament,
Demobilization, and Reintegration process in Sri Lanka between the Tamil
minority and the Sinhalese majority. Guerrilla war, so far involving only
small arms, begins in the north of the island.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090625/e64a7789/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Fri Jun 26 15:45:05 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:45:05 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Timeline stuff, Part VIII: North America
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906261245p3fd01fafsf8b070eb8ab8449b@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, finally, the last regional timeline. Some additional decisions will
follow in another message. It may seem unfairly focused on the US and Canada
- it is. I apologize for that, but have an excuse: I don't speak or read
Spanish, making getting information on Mexican politics very, very hard.
---
Regional themes:

1. Disillusionment: You hear it every week, seemingly: Another politician.
Having an affair. Getting raided for corruption. Sometimes both. Sometimes
weirder. It has not been isolated by party...Or even by country, as it's
happening throughout North America. Something about politics, people are
coming to believe, does something to a person's moral fiber. Will there ever
be anyone who brings politics back into the light?
---
Events:

October 2009: Mexican President Felipe Calderon is nearly assassinated by
members of the Presidential Guard - he survives but is wounded in the
attack, which claims the lives of five members of the guard unit before the
three rogue members are captured. Responsibility is traced to the "Los
Zetas" of the Gulf Cartel. Calderon will spend the next six months in a
difficult recovery.
November 2009: Anti-Muslim riots break out in Toronto and Vancouver over the
proposed institution of Sharia law for Muslims in personal matters.
December 2009: President Barack Obama orders active-duty military forces to
the border as Mexican drug violence threatens to spill over into the United
States.
April 2010: Higher-than-normal spring snow melt results in massive flooding
throughout the central US and Canada. In Canada, several dams, including two
hydroelectric dams, burst due to the flooding, when 2 weeks of nearly
unceasing rain adds to the amount of water. 20 are killed, thousands are
displaced, and damage runs into the billions across both countries.
June 2010: Hurricane Igor, a Class 5 hurricane, barrels through the
Caribbean at the lowest pressure and highest wind speeds yet recorded for a
hurricane. 4500 are killed, mainly in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in
the Caribbean before the storm slams into the US mainland near Brownsville,
Texas as a somewhat weaker Class 5; 300 are killed due to inadequate shelter
(and refusal to evacuate) in the poverty-striken border region (only $250
Million is sustained in monetary damage, a testament to how poor the area
is), but the state and federal response is generally rated as superb.
Hurricane Igor dissipates one week later after causing intense flooding in
Northern and Central Mexico.
August 2011: Protests over near Third-World conditions break out on Native
American reservations throughout the US, sparking similar demonstrations in
First Nation communities in Canada. These go mostly ignored until the
demonstrations turn violent. 20 die (mostly tribal police officers) in riots
in the US alone, with more violence occurring in Canada.
November 2011: Hackers of indeterminate origin manage to penetrate the
computer systems of the FAA and Nav Canada on the night before Thanksgiving
in the United States, disrupting the air traffic control operations of both
agencies during one of the busiest travel days of the year. No lives are
lost, nor planes downed (due largely to a low-level manager's decision to
ground all aircraft after the problem was noticed, onlyy slowly resuming
operations after a careful check of both countries' systems), but the
incident causes an uproar in Washington and Ottawa as the potential
consequences are realized.
March 2012: Dozens of MPs of all parties, including frontbench members of
all parties, are arrested in Ottawa by the RCMP, in a political corruption
sweep dubbed "Operation Dirty Snow". Accusations range from campaign funding
violations to the outright taking of bribes in exchange for votes.
June 2012: Renewed clashes between the Iroquois of southern Ontario and
security forces lead to the army being called in again to control the
situation, reminiscent of the Oka Crisis of 1990.  Seventeen Mohawks are
killed in a shootout with army units near Caledonia.
October 2012: Despite the best efforts of the US and Mexican militaries,
Mexican drug violence spills over definitively into the US, with a
widely-televised gunbattle between San Diego police and a Sinaloa Cartel
commando squad.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090626/93f62e8f/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Fri Jun 26 15:45:43 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:45:43 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] That other stuff!
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906261245g722b56ech5c4c700078ea5699@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, I'm writing this as I finish up the North America timeline.

If it reads disjointedly, that's because I'm doing both at once.
---
Pretty arbitrarily, I'm setting the POD for 0000 (Midnight) US Eastern
Daylight Time on July 4. If news -hits the media- before that time, it
happened in WAR. If not, it didn't.

Naturally, events will occur which blur things, potentially which completely
make a timeline event or events impossible or irrelevant. I'll deal with
them as they happen.
---
Country-picking:

My preference is to gather everybody on AIM and do the picking there;
however, reality tells me that won't happen. At least, I won't get
everybody.

So here's how I'm going to do it, trying my hardest to be fair to everybody
in a group scattered across timezones.

Country-picking will open at 8 PM US EDT tomorrow night via an email message
to this list. You can submit your choices either by AIM (I'll start a chat
for the purpose) or email. You -must- submit 3. Not 1, not 2. A minimum of
3. (I recommend having 4 or 5, actually, in case for some reason everybody
dogpiles on the same 3 countries.)

At 10 PM (or thereabouts), I will post the initial set of who submitted for
what countries. These will be DRAFTS. If you didn't or can't submit then,
never fear. You can submit via email. I'll update day by day in the (US)
evening until I see 24 hours with nobody picking (or changing) countries. I
fully expect people to want to change countries, either to resolve conflicts
or because they suddenly get a better idea. That's why nothing gets set in
stone until I see stability.)

At that point, I will post a final list. This will list the 3-5 countries
picked and the country ultimately assigned. If it's not on the list, it will
have been assigned basically at my discretion, something I prefer to avoid
if I possibly can.

Once the final list is posted, I will begin accepting country writeups,
including timelines. Expect some level of negotiation/arguing/me getting
bright ideas; in short, expect to go through a few drafts.

When it comes to accepted country writeups, I'll decide what to do with em
then.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090626/8ce190f1/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 10:40:56 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:40:56 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906270740w50f33dfan5b0214076f5fe6d3@mail.gmail.com>

It's a slow Saturday morning, I have nothing to do, not even anything for
WAR, so I've gotten to thinking.

Oh, stop hiding.

Thrown out ideas:

WAR FAQ - the more I think about it, the more I think WAR is best explained
by watching posts come in, the WR go out, etc. Put more succinctly, I'm not
sure how to go about writing such a FAQ. However, I mention it in case
someone wants to take a crack at writing such a thing.

Next up, ideas I'm considering:

The WR. Bluntly, do we even need a World Report? If we do, how should it be
structured? Are there any ways in which we can automate the process (in my
dreams only, I know)?

Activity requirements - I'm increasingly in favor of this, but it's a
decision I want to leave up to you. Should WAR have a formal activity
requirement?

If we do, I doubt I would enforce it as a hard requirement - more of a
"reach this point or be nagged", with only people turning in nothing
becoming eligible for removal.

Post counts - One thing I'm definitely thinking of borrowing from other sims
is posting a weekly or biweekly post count to the OOC list. People, I've
found, are naturally competitive, and want to reach the top of that list.
Keep in mind though that only public posts would count. Secret Actions would
not.

Is there anything else that comes to people's minds?

One brief thing: Even if you have no plans, no chance of playing a country
yet...Your opinions, your help on the OOC side of this endeavor would still
be welcome.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/3b0cb7b7/attachment.html 

From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sat Jun 27 11:26:47 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
Message-ID: <14772.95606.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I agree bout the World Reports. They seem to always cause stress, and be spoken of like a chore. I think, provided people exercise common sense/realism, they can define their own rate of growth, population, approval ratings (obviously if someone keeps saying they're 98% they need to be pulled up on that!).

--- On Sun, 28/6/09, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Received: Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 12:40 AM

It's a slow Saturday morning, I have nothing to do, not even anything for WAR, so I've gotten to thinking.
?
Oh, stop hiding.
?
Thrown out ideas:
?
WAR FAQ - the more I think about it, the more I think WAR is best explained by watching posts come in, the WR go out, etc. Put more succinctly, I'm not sure how to go about writing such a FAQ. However, I mention it in case someone wants to take a crack at writing such?a thing.

?
Next up, ideas I'm considering:
?
The WR. Bluntly, do we even need a World Report? If we do, how should it be structured? Are there any ways in which we can automate the process (in my dreams only, I know)?
?
Activity requirements - I'm increasingly in favor of this, but it's a decision I want to leave up to you. Should WAR have a formal?activity requirement?
?
If we do, I doubt I would enforce it as a hard requirement - more of a "reach this point or be nagged", with only people turning in nothing becoming eligible for removal.
?
Post counts - One thing I'm definitely thinking of borrowing from other sims is posting a weekly or biweekly post count to the OOC list. People, I've found, are naturally competitive, and want to reach the top of that list. Keep in mind though that only public posts would count. Secret Actions would not.

?
Is there anything else that comes to people's minds?
?
One brief thing: Even if you have no plans, no chance of playing a country yet...Your opinions, your help on the OOC side of this endeavor would still be welcome.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/44593090/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 11:36:07 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:36:07 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
In-Reply-To: <14772.95606.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <14772.95606.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906270836x453e38a4l66d8d891cc642c06@mail.gmail.com>

Agree to what? I never stated any opinion either way.

The WRs...On the one hand, they're a bit of a pain for the GM (and
anyone they rope into helping). They take research and no small amount of
discretion. On the other hand, I'm not sure letting players 'define their
own success' is a good idea.
Oh, in addition: Dan, I don't know why, but it's impossible to crop what you
write - could you please try to only quote relevant parts of messages, not
the whole message, in future?

John

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Sanderson <
dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>   I agree bout the World Reports. They seem to always cause stress, and be
> spoken of like a chore. I think, provided people exercise common
> sense/realism, they can define their own rate of growth, population,
> approval ratings (obviously if someone keeps saying they're 98% they need to
> be pulled up on that!).
>
> --- On *Sun, 28/6/09, John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>
> Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Received: Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 12:40 AM
>
>
>  It's a slow Saturday morning, I have nothing to do, not even anything for
> WAR, so I've gotten to thinking.
>
> Oh, stop hiding.
>
> Thrown out ideas:
>
> WAR FAQ - the more I think about it, the more I think WAR is best explained
> by watching posts come in, the WR go out, etc. Put more succinctly, I'm not
> sure how to go about writing such a FAQ. However, I mention it in case
> someone wants to take a crack at writing such a thing.
>
> Next up, ideas I'm considering:
>
> The WR. Bluntly, do we even need a World Report? If we do, how should it be
> structured? Are there any ways in which we can automate the process (in my
> dreams only, I know)?
>
> Activity requirements - I'm increasingly in favor of this, but it's a
> decision I want to leave up to you. Should WAR have a formal activity
> requirement?
>
> If we do, I doubt I would enforce it as a hard requirement - more of a
> "reach this point or be nagged", with only people turning in nothing
> becoming eligible for removal.
>
> Post counts - One thing I'm definitely thinking of borrowing from other
> sims is posting a weekly or biweekly post count to the OOC list. People,
> I've found, are naturally competitive, and want to reach the top of that
> list. Keep in mind though that only public posts would count. Secret Actions
> would not.
>
> Is there anything else that comes to people's minds?
>
> One brief thing: Even if you have no plans, no chance of playing a country
> yet...Your opinions, your help on the OOC side of this endeavor would still
> be welcome.
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com <http://mc/compose?to=War_ooc at esteroic.com>
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/mobile/tagline/*http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/5bc62e67/attachment-0001.html 

From michael.brittain at blueyonder.co.uk  Sat Jun 27 11:43:48 2009
From: michael.brittain at blueyonder.co.uk (Michael Brittain)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:43:48 +0100
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
References: <ab8370d40906270740w50f33dfan5b0214076f5fe6d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c9f73e$104e9bf0$5db7644d@MICHAELB>

Hey guys! I'm still on the WAR lists, and as I've already said to John would be more than willing to help out, so I thought I ought to speak up and get involved in the discussions :-)

My thoughts on the points below are yes to an activity requirement and yes to post counts (useful information, I'd say). Of course it's up to the rest of your guys, but I wouldn't have a problem with them. Also, I think that the WR could be replaced by another format not in so much detail. 

My past memories of WAR have always been that the WR is a monster to complete, and after a while plays a big part in the GM's feeling some form of burn out or unnecessary stress. We're all relatively :-P intelligent people so we're aware of the potential implications of our actions, posts etc, so detailed responses I don't think are really that necessary - we can all estimate approval ratings, economic growth etc ourselves as Dan says, and if there are issues a GM can step in to help. Good posts/plots and interactions between players and countries should negate the need for a detailed world report, at least in my opinion, especially as the game isn't being played 'scientifically', in that there's no sliding scales of actions to be considered etc. 

I'd be more in favour of  'fake' news reports from the various countries media outlets, or global news bulletins, as a way of responding to the actions of individual players but also as a way introducing new 'problems'/issues to deal with. I think it would make it more realistic and hopefully be an easy, routine way of introducing new plots and moving the game play along. They could be flexible in terms of when they're needed to be sent out - they'd be no fixed date, they'd be fluid to in game plots, wouldn't need to be very detailed or long, could follow a simple format and are less monotonous maybe? You could also use them on the website to make WAR more realistic to potential players, and so that they could see what was going on.

Maybe there's just as much work in these 'news snippets' and maybe I'm being a bit naive! What are everyone else's thoughts on this? :-)

- Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Penta 
  To: war_ooc at esteroic.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:40 PM
  Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.


  It's a slow Saturday morning, I have nothing to do, not even anything for WAR, so I've gotten to thinking.

  Oh, stop hiding.

  Thrown out ideas:

  WAR FAQ - the more I think about it, the more I think WAR is best explained by watching posts come in, the WR go out, etc. Put more succinctly, I'm not sure how to go about writing such a FAQ. However, I mention it in case someone wants to take a crack at writing such a thing.

  Next up, ideas I'm considering:

  The WR. Bluntly, do we even need a World Report? If we do, how should it be structured? Are there any ways in which we can automate the process (in my dreams only, I know)?

  Activity requirements - I'm increasingly in favor of this, but it's a decision I want to leave up to you. Should WAR have a formal activity requirement?

  If we do, I doubt I would enforce it as a hard requirement - more of a "reach this point or be nagged", with only people turning in nothing becoming eligible for removal.

  Post counts - One thing I'm definitely thinking of borrowing from other sims is posting a weekly or biweekly post count to the OOC list. People, I've found, are naturally competitive, and want to reach the top of that list. Keep in mind though that only public posts would count. Secret Actions would not.

  Is there anything else that comes to people's minds?

  One brief thing: Even if you have no plans, no chance of playing a country yet...Your opinions, your help on the OOC side of this endeavor would still be welcome.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  War_ooc mailing list
  War_ooc at esteroic.com
  http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009 06:16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/88cc01a7/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009 06:16

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 12:04:27 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:04:27 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
In-Reply-To: <005a01c9f73e$104e9bf0$5db7644d@MICHAELB>
References: <ab8370d40906270740w50f33dfan5b0214076f5fe6d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<005a01c9f73e$104e9bf0$5db7644d@MICHAELB>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906270904y8986c9cu79915a0cb74f3ae9@mail.gmail.com>

I'm going to hit on the various points Mike raises on their own between the
message. Hope this goes through...

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Michael Brittain <
michael.brittain at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>  Hey guys! I'm still on the WAR lists, and as I've already said to John
> would be more than willing to help out, so I thought I ought to speak up and
> get involved in the discussions :-)
>
> My thoughts on the points below are yes to an activity requirement and yes
> to post counts (useful information, I'd say). Of course it's up to the rest
> of your guys, but I wouldn't have a problem with them. Also, I think that
> the WR could be replaced by another format not in so much detail.
>
> My past memories of WAR have always been that the WR is a monster to
> complete, and after a while plays a big part in the GM's feeling some form
> of burn out or unnecessary stress. We're all relatively :-P intelligent
> people so we're aware of the potential implications of our actions, posts
> etc, so detailed responses I don't think are really that necessary - we can
> all estimate approval ratings, economic growth etc ourselves as Dan says,
> and if there are issues a GM can step in to help. Good posts/plots and
> interactions between players and countries should negate the need for a
> detailed world report, at least in my opinion, especially as the game isn't
> being played 'scientifically', in that there's no sliding scales of actions
> to be considered etc.
>

That ignores the role of Secret Actions: In short, all the sneaky stuff
players get up to, from the subtle to the noticeable. In my time with WAR,
they've run the gamut from false flag terrorist bombings to currency
manipulation to diplomatic campaigns to...Well, if you can imagine it, I'm
willing to guess that since I joined in 2001, someone has tried it.

The WR is hard to complete, in part because it's just plain big (one section
per country, plus global sections...It adds up), in part because (and if we
do go ahead with the WR, this is where I'd really like help) there's no
template. Making a readable, easy-to-assimilate WR takes time.

I think when I was able to really focus, when the issues were simple and
not-too-much research was required to give a realistic, considered response,
I got the WR down to taking maybe 20 minutes per country. There's a
fundamental reason, hence, why I would never promise a WR more than once a
week. Having other people help was a huge assist when WAR got big, but also
made the process longer in some respects. If the WR is a source of stress,
it's because the GM can usually expect to spend the better part of an
evening working on it; I don't recall a single instance where it did not
take at least an hour and a half...And usually, once you get the WR out you
get called out on stuff you missed, logical errors, and things people just
plain don't like.


>
> I'd be more in favour of  'fake' news reports from the various countries
> media outlets, or global news bulletins, as a way of responding to the
> actions of individual players but also as a way introducing new
> 'problems'/issues to deal with. I think it would make it more realistic and
> hopefully be an easy, routine way of introducing new plots and moving the
> game play along. They could be flexible in terms of when they're needed to
> be sent out - they'd be no fixed date, they'd be fluid to in game plots,
> wouldn't need to be very detailed or long, could follow a simple format and
> are less monotonous maybe? You could also use them on the website to make
> WAR more realistic to potential players, and so that they could see what was
> going on.
>
> Maybe there's just as much work in these 'news snippets' and maybe I'm
> being a bit naive! What are everyone else's thoughts on this? :-)
>

Most plots in WAR come from players interacting with players. It's
*incredibly* rare that the GM can launch a plot on their own and actually
have players pay attention to it long-term. Either it's because I and
previous GMs suck, or some other reason, I don't know.

Writing in a journalistic style would take just as long as writing in the
third person semi-omniscient that the WR uses. It doesn't disqualify it,
such writing comes in very handy for flash reports that introduce new
events, but it isn't easier.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/9600d233/attachment.html 

From lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca  Sat Jun 27 12:26:50 2009
From: lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca (lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:26:50 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
Message-ID: <20090627122650.l5uvg9lt6o00k8kw@webmail.utoronto.ca>

Hello everyone,

Time for me to present a third proposal. This proposal is based on the  
idea that the game dies with the GM:

1. No world reports or news snippets. This will take the load off the  
GM and make WAR more sustainable.

2. Make simple results-based-on-plot actions, and have explicitly  
stated expected results. Ie, Country X does action Y to try and arrive  
at result Z. The GM would say, instead of a long digression, that the  
action was successful/does nothing/not successful, or some combination  
of the three. This should accomplish the same result as a World  
Report/News Snippet, keep the onus off the GM (thus making the game  
more sustainable), and force the player to follow up to see the  
benefits of their RP.

3. Have concrete, hard-enforced IG-turn lengths and IRL-turn lengths.  
Ie, 3 months IG = 1 week IRL, or something similar. If we start  
messing about with turn-lengths IG/IRL, it really mucks up the flow of  
WAR, which contributes to its untimely demise.

4. Have penalties for inactivity. Like a set corruption/instability  
penalty/turn. So if the player doesn't RP, they'll naturally become  
weaker, and the GM can make news-announcements when shit hits the fan  
in a country.

That being said, some things would have to be determined. What's a  
good turn length IG/IRL? Penalties should be applied every turn to  
keep the onus on the players, but their effect will be proportional to  
how long each turn represents. If we do 1 IRL week = 3 IG months, it  
might be a little too "whirlwind" for people to keep up, but maybe 1  
IRL week = 1.5 - 2 IG months? I personally would like to see 1 IRL  
week = 2 IG months. We could have terms (by terms, I mean 4 years)  
every ~6 months that way. Again, it really depends how we want to  
determine the rate of gameplay.

Anyways let me know what you guys think
-- Lee



From martellian at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 27 12:32:32 2009
From: martellian at hotmail.com (Ian Martell)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:32:32 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906270904y8986c9cu79915a0cb74f3ae9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906270740w50f33dfan5b0214076f5fe6d3@mail.gmail.com><005a01c9f73e$104e9bf0$5db7644d@MICHAELB>
	<ab8370d40906270904y8986c9cu79915a0cb74f3ae9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY124-DS6F731A71D3AFF906C571EC6320@phx.gbl>


My experience is that while the WR is a pain in the ass to write, it's also been pretty essential to the game, after all without the WR how do we know if what we propose in our posts work or not? As others have said the alternative is figuring it out for our own selves free of judgment of a GM which pretty much negates the 'game' aspect of WAR, and then it becomes a cooperative writing exercise, which is not a bad thing, but it's not the WAR I've come to enjoy. 

My thinking is that we should keep the WR, I for one feel like they're the payoff for the work I put into my posts and spurs me to writing new stuff in reaction to it.  As for format etc. Automation would be the GM's holy grail, let me tell you, John's not kidding when he says they're a beast to write, but lacking a method for that, I'd say the old format works just fine, if we can tighten it, go to point form or whatever for the sake of GM sanity, no problem, further I think we should make them indisputable unless the WR it self fails the Crack Test T and thus save the GM from responding to tons of complaints and focus on writing the WR and playing their country.

Yep I know that was a bit of a ramble, but give me a break, I just got up. =)

Anyhow, that's my two cents.


From: John Penta 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:04 AM
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com 
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.


I'm going to hit on the various points Mike raises on their own between the message. Hope this goes through...


On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Michael Brittain <michael.brittain at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

  Hey guys! I'm still on the WAR lists, and as I've already said to John would be more than willing to help out, so I thought I ought to speak up and get involved in the discussions :-)

  My thoughts on the points below are yes to an activity requirement and yes to post counts (useful information, I'd say). Of course it's up to the rest of your guys, but I wouldn't have a problem with them. Also, I think that the WR could be replaced by another format not in so much detail. 

  My past memories of WAR have always been that the WR is a monster to complete, and after a while plays a big part in the GM's feeling some form of burn out or unnecessary stress. We're all relatively :-P intelligent people so we're aware of the potential implications of our actions, posts etc, so detailed responses I don't think are really that necessary - we can all estimate approval ratings, economic growth etc ourselves as Dan says, and if there are issues a GM can step in to help. Good posts/plots and interactions between players and countries should negate the need for a detailed world report, at least in my opinion, especially as the game isn't being played 'scientifically', in that there's no sliding scales of actions to be considered etc. 

That ignores the role of Secret Actions: In short, all the sneaky stuff players get up to, from the subtle to the noticeable. In my time with WAR, they've run the gamut from false flag terrorist bombings to currency manipulation to diplomatic campaigns to...Well, if you can imagine it, I'm willing to guess that since I joined in 2001, someone has tried it.

The WR is hard to complete, in part because it's just plain big (one section per country, plus global sections...It adds up), in part because (and if we do go ahead with the WR, this is where I'd really like help) there's no template. Making a readable, easy-to-assimilate WR takes time.

I think when I was able to really focus, when the issues were simple and not-too-much research was required to give a realistic, considered response, I got the WR down to taking maybe 20 minutes per country. There's a fundamental reason, hence, why I would never promise a WR more than once a week. Having other people help was a huge assist when WAR got big, but also made the process longer in some respects. If the WR is a source of stress, it's because the GM can usually expect to spend the better part of an evening working on it; I don't recall a single instance where it did not take at least an hour and a half...And usually, once you get the WR out you get called out on stuff you missed, logical errors, and things people just plain don't like. 


  I'd be more in favour of  'fake' news reports from the various countries media outlets, or global news bulletins, as a way of responding to the actions of individual players but also as a way introducing new 'problems'/issues to deal with. I think it would make it more realistic and hopefully be an easy, routine way of introducing new plots and moving the game play along. They could be flexible in terms of when they're needed to be sent out - they'd be no fixed date, they'd be fluid to in game plots, wouldn't need to be very detailed or long, could follow a simple format and are less monotonous maybe? You could also use them on the website to make WAR more realistic to potential players, and so that they could see what was going on.

  Maybe there's just as much work in these 'news snippets' and maybe I'm being a bit naive! What are everyone else's thoughts on this? :-)

Most plots in WAR come from players interacting with players. It's *incredibly* rare that the GM can launch a plot on their own and actually have players pay attention to it long-term. Either it's because I and previous GMs suck, or some other reason, I don't know.

Writing in a journalistic style would take just as long as writing in the third person semi-omniscient that the WR uses. It doesn't disqualify it, such writing comes in very handy for flash reports that introduce new events, but it isn't easier.

John


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/61ac6879/attachment-0001.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 12:54:47 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:54:47 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] 7 hour warning
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906270954m2ef23995ga22634d93aa48ddb@mail.gmail.com>

Just a quick note:

Right now it is approximately 1255 PM EDT.

Country picks open up at 8 PM EDT, as I posted last night. If you can be on
AIM then, please try to be. (I have secret motives beyond wanting people to
get the country-picking-process done quickly, yes; namely, WAR can be kinda
unfun if we're only interacting through email. The insanity and usual
topic-drift of the AIM chats helps bind us OOCly, which helps when the game
gets heated.)

If you can't, that is quite alright too. We can still do the country picking
process via email. I'll post the first (of possibly many) draft list of who
goes where at 10 PM.

If I have your AIM/AOL screen name and you're on, I'll invite you to the
chat. You don't necessarily need to be intending to play at the moment -
observers are welcome too.

Whose screen names I have:

Buckley
Mike Downey
Mike Brittain
Lee
Iain
Ian
Dylan

If you aren't on that list, I don't have your screen name. You're still
invited, but please get me that screen name so I can invite you.:)

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/897a1b7e/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 18:33:32 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:33:32 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.
In-Reply-To: <BAY124-DS6F731A71D3AFF906C571EC6320@phx.gbl>
References: <ab8370d40906270740w50f33dfan5b0214076f5fe6d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<005a01c9f73e$104e9bf0$5db7644d@MICHAELB>
	<ab8370d40906270904y8986c9cu79915a0cb74f3ae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY124-DS6F731A71D3AFF906C571EC6320@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <763946e70906271533n441f6144s72db06d93e5f5340@mail.gmail.com>

well to be honest i really liked the WR.  that was what kept everyone going,
seeing what was going to come up next.  we need some sort of weekly thing
like that, just make it really simple and quick and like ian said, make in
indisputable so noone can bitch about it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/a2f0cc54/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 21:01:12 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:01:12 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Country picks as of 2100 EDT 6/27/09
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906271801l53c7d8fbhc9bed31fa8d10610@mail.gmail.com>

In no particular order, who people picked and who they ultimately got.

Buckley: US, Saudi, France??? Assigned: USA
Dylan: Canada, Ethiopia, South Africa Assigned: Ethiopia
Mike Brittain: UK, Germany, Italy Assigned: UK
Iain: 1) Canada 2) UK 3) South Africa 4) Norway 5) Spain Assigned: Canada
Mike Downey: Japan Canada China United Kingdom Iran? Assigned: Japan
Chris: China, Russia, and India Assigned: China
Ian: 1. Brazil, 2. Russia, 3. UK, 4. China 5. Japan Asiigned: Brazil

Commentary:

Well, hell, you guys DOGPILED ON CANADA.

I was going to flip a Loonie coin I found somewhere, but Dylan was
good enough to pull out of The Great Canada Fight. Thank you, Dylan.:)

We actually have a good spread, here.

I'll address next steps in a moment.


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sat Jun 27 22:05:51 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:05:51 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Next step: Country writeups.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906271905r4471d013l72944c36e17831f0@mail.gmail.com>

Mike Brittain found an old copy of the format he used, but
unfortunately it wasn't the standard one...

Ugh.

So here goes my attempt at a format.
----
Country long-name (In English)
Head of State:
Head of Government:
Population:
GDP (PPP): Use $
GDP (PPP) per capita: Use $
Unemployment: In %.
Economic Growth: In %

Political Landscape

Economics

Social Issues

Defense

Foreign Relations

Timeline
---

With that said:

For population, 4 years is short enough it's probably best to take the
pop growth rates from the CIA World Factbook and apply those.

GDP growth...take your best guess, if it sounds reasonable I'll go
with it. Keep in mind you're just coming out of a recession that's
probably the worst since the Great Depression.

Oh, for Commonwealth Realms (you know who you are): Your Head of State
is the Queen, represented by whoever the Governor-General is. If 2013
passes a point in which a G-G would be replaced (I have no idea) talk
to me.

John


From dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun 28 01:18:32 2009
From: dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au (Daniel Sanderson)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] Country picks as of 2100 EDT 6/27/09
Message-ID: <745841.40941.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hey everyone,
I think I've made my decision. I won't be returning to WAR. I am, however, considering possibly developing my idea on the space-colonialist-type WAR, maybe. Otherwise I might just move onto some writing of my own. If anyone is interested in the space idea, let me know.
Thanks everyone, and good luck
Go ahead and unsubscribe me from the lists etc.
Dan


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/f32bf3ed/attachment.html 

From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 02:33:19 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:33:19 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Country picks as of 2100 EDT 6/27/09
In-Reply-To: <745841.40941.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <745841.40941.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906272333u65e15e79g6e72d19706ce4422@mail.gmail.com>

aww come on, come back!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/9110c863/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 09:42:23 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:42:23 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] North Korea
In-Reply-To: <6b6ab8a70906280551q7261d11ey6d430d677373de4f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6b6ab8a70906280551q7261d11ey6d430d677373de4f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906280642u9d42f8gda17a9bf78330ccc@mail.gmail.com>

Throwing this to the list so everybody knows:

North Korea has proceeded stably. Kim Jong Il's youngest son (Kim Jong
Un) has steadily been preparing for what is seen as his inevitable
succession to his father.

Nork missile and nuclear tests proceed apace.

John

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Michael
Downey<michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Before I do my writeup, could you maybe give me some info on what
> North Korea has been up to?
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 11:49:51 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:49:51 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Country picks as of 2100 EDT 6/27/09
In-Reply-To: <745841.40941.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <745841.40941.qm@web39103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906280849w270798d1m86669cbf2f764cde@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, I'll unsubscribe you after sending this message. Sorry to see you go.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Daniel
Sanderson<dantheman2210 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I think I've made my decision. I won't be returning to WAR. I am, however,
> considering possibly developing my idea on the space-colonialist-type WAR,
> maybe. Otherwise I might just move onto some writing of my own. If anyone is
> interested in the space idea, let me know.
> Thanks everyone, and good luck
> Go ahead and unsubscribe me from the lists etc.
> Dan
>
> ________________________________
> Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how.
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 12:17:49 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:17:49 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] This is exactly why we have a POD....
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906280917j3441a227n53f88c0c7b4ebf81@mail.gmail.com>

....And why we best have some slack time between it and the start of play:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_honduras_referendum

The Honduran President just got overthrown. Minor, things will
probably just go on normally without him, he was opposed by his own
party, but still.

And Northern Ireland's Protestants just disarmed:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nireland_disarmament;


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 13:23:22 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:23:22 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>

war-rpg.wikidot.com.

Yes, it has no content. Or anything, really.

If I can rope people in to learn the big stuff about their
implementation of Wiki (I'm just confused by the tutorials), we can
then turn it into our website.

Who's up for learning?

John


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 13:47:21 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:47:21 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Whee! We has person!
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906281047k617c4aem7d72f2674779fe04@mail.gmail.com>

Yes yes, I'm thinking like a lolcat today.

Anyway, Lisa has returned, she'll be taking up Russia.


From vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 13:48:20 2009
From: vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com (Vampi Digitalwytch)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:48:20 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Whee! We has person!
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906281047k617c4aem7d72f2674779fe04@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281047k617c4aem7d72f2674779fe04@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e245f8830906281048rf3eefc9le0bbbca4fbcb6c82@mail.gmail.com>

Hello again all and I promise, no return of the Czar or the Romanoffs.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes yes, I'm thinking like a lolcat today.
>
> Anyway, Lisa has returned, she'll be taking up Russia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>



-- 
--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 dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 13:57:55 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:57:55 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] Whee! We has person!
In-Reply-To: <e245f8830906281048rf3eefc9le0bbbca4fbcb6c82@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281047k617c4aem7d72f2674779fe04@mail.gmail.com>
	<e245f8830906281048rf3eefc9le0bbbca4fbcb6c82@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906281057uaad02a7wd3f8b5509a91bf1@mail.gmail.com>

welcome back
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090628/fd73c60a/attachment.html 

From ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 15:05:21 2009
From: ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com (Dan Garcia)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <248364.33795.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


Hey all,

Having a boring, miserable Sunday afternoon, I looked briefly at wikidot.com.  To get this thing going, two things are necessary:  first, you have to sign up for a free account; second, John has to add you to the list of members manually.

For John, the way to invite people is to go to the front page.  The first link in the main section should be "Site Manager" (it's in the middle of the first sentence...).  Click that.  When that page loads, on the side navigation bar will be a link called "Members".  Click that to get a sub-list of links below "Members", one of which should be "Invite Members".  Click that.  This will let you add one person at a time (no response from them is necessary I think).  The link below it, "Send Email Invitations", will let you send multiple invites by email.  I think this option does not assume that they are already members, and the email I think will ask them to sign up, and then presumably add them to the site.

The other links in the "Members" sub-list of links and on the "Site Manager" page generally might also be useful, but presumably this is the bare minimum to get things working.  Hope that helps.

Dan Garcia




----- Original Message ----
From: John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:23:22 PM
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!

war-rpg.wikidot.com.

Yes, it has no content. Or anything, really.

If I can rope people in to learn the big stuff about their
implementation of Wiki (I'm just confused by the tutorials), we can
then turn it into our website.

Who's up for learning?

John

_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com



From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 15:09:39 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:09:39 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!
In-Reply-To: <248364.33795.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>
	<248364.33795.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906281209k59755b2at2b0034b641183605@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Dan!

For everybody else: Establish a Wikidot account. Then, email me the user name.

John

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Dan Garcia<ssiruuk25 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Having a boring, miserable Sunday afternoon, I looked briefly at wikidot.com. ?To get this thing going, two things are necessary: ?first, you have to sign up for a free account; second, John has to add you to the list of members manually.
>
> For John, the way to invite people is to go to the front page. ?The first link in the main section should be "Site Manager" (it's in the middle of the first sentence...). ?Click that. ?When that page loads, on the side navigation bar will be a link called "Members". ?Click that to get a sub-list of links below "Members", one of which should be "Invite Members". ?Click that. ?This will let you add one person at a time (no response from them is necessary I think). ?The link below it, "Send Email Invitations", will let you send multiple invites by email. ?I think this option does not assume that they are already members, and the email I think will ask them to sign up, and then presumably add them to the site.
>
> The other links in the "Members" sub-list of links and on the "Site Manager" page generally might also be useful, but presumably this is the bare minimum to get things working. ?Hope that helps.
>
> Dan Garcia


From dylandv at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 15:18:11 2009
From: dylandv at gmail.com (Dylan de Valk)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:18:11 -0700
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!
In-Reply-To: <ab8370d40906281209k59755b2at2b0034b641183605@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>
	<248364.33795.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906281209k59755b2at2b0034b641183605@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <763946e70906281218m75b537f8mc30d6d10ab6462f3@mail.gmail.com>

its a polish site? lol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090628/13e9f7fe/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 15:18:55 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:18:55 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] We has a wiki!
In-Reply-To: <763946e70906281218m75b537f8mc30d6d10ab6462f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab8370d40906281023mbe52fbatc7da954be24f5ba0@mail.gmail.com>
	<248364.33795.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ab8370d40906281209k59755b2at2b0034b641183605@mail.gmail.com>
	<763946e70906281218m75b537f8mc30d6d10ab6462f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906281218o2e89485s106e1366edb2b00@mail.gmail.com>

The site is in English. I set that function myself.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Dylan de Valk<dylandv at gmail.com> wrote:
> its a polish site? lol
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>


From john.penta at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 19:16:29 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:16:29 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Er, yes.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906281616r330cbed0yfe786d40ca63df0e@mail.gmail.com>

Two quick notes:

I think Chris meant 'privatization' not 'deprivatization', but
regardless I'm going to accept his writeup.

Second: In case you weren't around to hear it last night, because I
somehow forgot to mention it in a post: Please send the writeups to me
before sending em to the list - this helps prevent crossed wires and
lets me sanity check things. Thus far everything's been sane, but
still.

John


From vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com  Sun Jun 28 23:49:34 2009
From: vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com (Vampi Digitalwytch)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:49:34 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] Just a head's up
Message-ID: <e245f8830906282049ged05712w715d7bb4f7cb172d@mail.gmail.com>

I am working on the write up for Russia but just so everyone knows,
this upcoming week I do have finals so it might be a bit delayed but
definitely coming through sometime this week.

-- 
--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 john.penta at gmail.com  Mon Jun 29 17:15:57 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:15:57 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] We might want a new blurb.
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906291415t6c00ad23na14204321a4585d6@mail.gmail.com>

For the opening page of the wiki/website, we might need a new blurb.
(By the way, if you haven't signed up to Wikidot and the wiki (I've
invited a few of you, but thusfar I only see Dylan on the member list
as having accepted the invite), please do.)

Below, I've included the old one. Certain things (like running folks
below the head-of-government) have never worked in the past; certain
other things (like running a terrorist organization) have been tried
once (and I don't recall if that really worked).

And some of it just sounds like it could be written better, though I
admit to having a fondness for most of it.
---

The Old Blurb:

World Alliances and Rivalries (W.A.R. for short) is a political
role-playing game set in the modern day. You, as a player, play either
the head of government, one of his appointees, a legislator within a
country in the world, or a terrorist organization. Whether it's the
sprawling nation of Russia or the miniscule nation of San Marino, you
make the decisions that decide your nation's place in the world.
Anyone can dream of success...but can you create it?
Despite the abbreviation, WAR is about a lot more than simply wars,
although they do happen occasionally. WAR is about the entire spectrum
of global politics and diplomacy, from trade to negotiations to
brokering peace in trouble regions to, yes, war and its consequences.

Beyond that, there's a political and domestic side to WAR, as well as
the military and international sides. Remember: Your country is
watching your every move, and they don't want to have to face what
happens when you screw up and pick the wrong time to play hardball.
There will be legislatures to squabble with and compromises and
decisions to make. Scandal, disaster, corruption, rebellion, and all
the other nasty things the world can cook up can develop at any time.

The issues and the flashpoints that fan the flames of tension in our
world still exist, with all of the trouble they bring. The Cold War
has ended, the world has stumbled through the New World Order of the
1990s, and history is in the making. Can you lead your nation through
this troubled time? Let's find out.
---

My suggestion for lack of a better one:

World Alliances and Rivalries (WAR for short) is a political
role-playing game set in the near future. You, as a player, play the
head of government of country in the world. Whether it's the sprawling
nation of Russia or the miniscule nation of San Marino, you make the
decisions that decide your nation's place in the world. Anyone can
dream of success...but can you create it?

Despite the abbreviation, WAR is about a lot more than simply wars,
although they do happen occasionally. WAR is about the entire spectrum
of global politics and diplomacy, from trade to negotiations to
brokering peace in trouble regions to, yes, war and its consequences.

Beyond that, there's a political and domestic side to WAR, as well as
the military and international sides. Remember: Your country is
watching your every move, and they don't want to have to face what
happens when you screw up and pick the wrong time to play hardball.
There will be legislatures to squabble with and compromises and
decisions to make. Scandal, disaster, corruption, rebellion, and all
the other nasty things the world can cook up can develop at any time.
---

John


From pbuck11 at aol.com  Mon Jun 29 20:50:32 2009
From: pbuck11 at aol.com (Patrick B)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:50:32 -0600
Subject: [War_ooc] USA 2013
Message-ID: <4A496158.5040903@aol.com>

Country long-name United States of America
Head of State:Steven Dupree President Of the United States
Head of Government:Steven Dupree President Of the United States
Population:307,212,123
GDP (PPP): Use $18.629 trillion
GDP (PPP) per capita: Use $47,000
Unemployment: In %.6.2
Economic Growth: In %1.9%

Political Landscape: Starting out with big dreams and goals the 
Presidency of Barack Obama sputters along battered from both the right 
and the left, The plea agreement of former financieer Antonin "Tony" 
Rezko pushed the Obama's home right back in to the news, while US 
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald finds no wrong doing directly related to the 
president, however adding to the situation the trial of Illinois govenor 
Rod Blagjoivich resulted in the dirty details of the "Chicago Machine" 
becoming known to those outside Cook County, while again the president 
was not implicated directly or indirectly the appearance of corruption 
was enough to drop his approval ratings to a paltry 32%, Smelling blood 
in the water progressive challengers began to take pot shots from the 
left. The administration reeled and with the widely considered failure 
of TARP weakened political capital.

On the Republican side Chariman Michael Steele stepped down after one 
year of his term arguing family difficulties, which caused more blood in 
the water, and had several candidates for the term one of which was 
Television Host Glenn Beck, the election finally selected a new media 
expert named Dennis Franzen who was supposed to just be a caretaker 
leader but he also knew if the party didn't change it would collapse. So 
he reached out, to the new media, the internet and to traditionally 
hostile sources.

During one of the conversations this one on the Daily Show he remarked 
that "a party that speaks of family values should practice those values 
themselves." This resulted in a shift of politics from values based to 
economic issues, arguing that in this time when people are worried about 
their jobs, we cannot argue values.

In 2010 the Republicans managed to work new media such as weblogs and 
message boards, which included talking points at such a rapid response 
that when an attack was leveled against a candidate there was a rebuttle 
waiting. After years of getting hit by rapid response the GOP Rapid 
Response improved.  Rather then the disaster that was predicted by many 
a pundit it was in fact a moderate gain, helped by several independant 
congressmen and women.

The Democratic leadership went in to a tailspin and rather then the 
swift primary season expected it was a bloody battle with challengers 
popping out of the woodwork and requiring a massive messy primary fight, 
which culminated in the Chicago 2012 convention, which was supposed to 
reunify the party, but turned in to a floor fight, and a second branch 
of Riots on the streets, which resulted in the Chicago Police Department 
once again clashing with student protestors live on NBC, which resulted 
in the unofficial t shirt slogan 'Chicago Police Department Undefeated....'

The General election turned in to a brawl, with Barack Obama and a 
fractured Democratic base facing a newly energized Republican party with 
it's much smoother convention in Albuquerque New Mexico, It's standard 
bearer was a business executive from Lake Forest Illinois,  Steven 
Dupree, who had built up a Search engine called Webfind.com, the slogan 
picked was New Beginnings. It was still a close race with Dupree pulling 
out a 287 to 251 Electoral vote victory, much closer then the popular 
vote of 55% to 40% with 5% going to Third party candidate Ralph Nader.

Congress on the other hand was closer, the independant revolution still 
not petered out, resulted in  closer margins, 55-40 in the senate with 5 
independant senators, in the house 225 Republicans 200 Democrats and 13 
independants.

Economics: The recession of 2009 lasted untill 2011 with an upswing in 
job creation, GM emerged from Chapter 11 protection in 2010 with the 
creation of new cars, An increase in hybrid/electric cars resulted in an 
attempt to decrease the US oil dependancy, resulted in several companies 
starting to build, in addition a backlash against foreign support 
increased the number of in house call center jobs within the United States.

Economy is still recovering however people are also starting their own 
businesses with new business starts increasing in 2011. The housing 
bubble's collapse had has the positive effect in making homes more 
afforable to people.

Social Issues: The recession brought with it an increase in crime, which 
also increased violence and as a result more Americans purchased 
firearms, Heath insurance was brought to the forefront as more people 
losing jobs and coverage began to overwhelm emergency rooms.

Drugs continue to be a thorn in the US side, with arguments ranging from 
execution on the far right to legalizing everything on the far left, so 
far a more moderate policy has been established with the dealers facing 
prison terms and users being offered treatment on first offenses.

Also several incidents with Mexican cartels has provoked harsh anti 
illegal immigrant sentiments, with recruitment in the Minutemen 
increasing along with reported hate crimes.

Defense:With Iraq and Afghanistan both in the past, the military has 
begun the difficult task of rebuilding and rearming for the next 
generation of warfare.

Special forces have been slowly built up, from the US Army's Green 
Berets, to the US Navy's SEAL teams, While they have been working on 
increasing the number of active teams, they did not want to decrease the 
quality.

There is some talk of replacing the M-16/M-4 weapons platform to more of 
a portable weapons system.


Foreign Relations: Internationally things have mellowed upt somewhat, 
Obama's good will tours helpep and the US tried to be more of a good 
international neighbor. Mexican relations have been shaky in the best of 
times, but have deteriorated with Illegal immigrants continued to flood 
over and more evidence the Mexican government was behind this.  As the 
US launched several immigration crackdowns, reports of Cartel forces 
engaging the San Diego Police department in a gun battle in addition to 
the citizenry of Las Cruces NM. Right now relations are very strained.

Timeline

2009: Antonin "Tony" Rezko enters in to plea agreement with US Attorneys 
office
       CNN coverage of Chicago politcs sparks outrage, US Universal 
healthcare bill fails in congress
2010: Independant revolution Several third party candidates not running 
on any party run for house and senate, Republican resurgance shocks punditry
2011: Mexican drug cartel attack on San Diego and Las Cruces
2012: Chicago Democratic convention results in riot, Chicago Police dept 
2-0 vs hippies
       Albuquerque NM Republican convention nominates Steven Dupree to 
be president
        Dupree wins in close election. Narrow Republican margin in House 
and Senate


From john.penta at gmail.com  Mon Jun 29 21:46:12 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:46:12 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] A quick status report
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906291846p5f3e5e91t528018d140f60226@mail.gmail.com>

Country writeups are coming in at a nice clip.

So far I have:

USA
Ethiopia
Japan
China
Brazil

Waiting to hear from:

UK (Mike Brittain)
Canada (Iain)
Russia (Lisa)

Please please please, *send it to me first* when you have them done.

It lets me throw Random Event Balls and lets me ferret out problems in
the writeups - from substantive issues to unclear prose - before you
send it to the list.

John


From Chazenesq2b at aol.com  Mon Jun 29 22:19:30 2009
From: Chazenesq2b at aol.com (Chazenesq2b at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:19:30 EDT
Subject: [War_ooc] A quick status report
Message-ID: <c41.5f148270.377ad032@aol.com>

Don't forget the typos ;-)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823281x1201398699/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JunestepsfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090629/342bf081/attachment.html 

From john.penta at gmail.com  Tue Jun 30 14:51:48 2009
From: john.penta at gmail.com (John Penta)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:51:48 -0400
Subject: [War_ooc] Daily WAR status report for 30 June 2009 (Kind of long)
Message-ID: <ab8370d40906301151h4aadb00bucd440faba37aa450@mail.gmail.com>

This is a bit long, but worth reading it all.
---
We got another person!

Another old player, anyway.

I'm still working out things with him as to whether play will be
possible, but Bryan Tribble has returned to the WAR fold! Bryan, step
up and introduce yourself!

Currently in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, working for an NGO, Bryan should
be returning Stateside in August.

Yeah, you read that right. Bryan would be the first player WAR has
*ever* had posting from a non-Western country (to my knowledge
anyway). We once, years ago, had a player posting from Israel, but
that was years upon years ago.

Please note that Bryan is in Dar es Salaam - power or internet access
might be a bit of an issue on occasion if he in fact decides to play,
at least til he gets back to the States. Thus, please be forgiving if
he suddenly drops out of sight suddenly.
---

Aside from that joyous news, some further updates:

Lisa now has admin powers on the Wiki. One of us will eventually
figure out how to turn things from that contentless start page into
the website replacement it's meant to be. Meanwhile, if you haven't
signed up for Wikidot and let me know your Wikidot user name, please
do. When you do, I'll invite you to join the WAR wiki. Please accept
the invite.

Why?

Because...Bryan, in addition to announcing his continued existence to
me, also offered to set up a website using Joomla, a content
management system that should, in theory, allow players to post their
own country pages in much the same way as a Wiki would.

I'm vacillating between either of the two approaches - it'll come down
to cost (first of all, because I'd be paying for anything to do with
WAR out of my own pocket (and I really have no money to spend)), but
secondly to user-friendliness: I realize mucking with code is a big
turnoff to many people (it certainly is for me), and...

My bright idea, the idea which pushes me towards either approach (as
opposed to a classic website), is having players maintain their own
country pages...and for the more technically-inclined, helping
maintain the rest of the Wiki (or whatever we choose).

I'm going to sketch out my dream here:

Eventually, what I'd like to see happen is that WAR's web presence
does more than merely advertise the game, but also becomes a
user-friendly compendium of game-related info *maintained by the
players*. From homegrown projects that've been revealed to the game at
large (through whatever means), to basic country info, to, truthfully,
whatever else people can think of.

It would, of course, include the basic stuff newbies need, but it'd
also be useful to the non-newbie player too.

The key here is that there is no way, no way in hell, it can just be
the responsibility of me as GM (especially given I'm technically
clueless when it comes to this), or me and whoever winds up taking
responsibility for the web presence (to choose a term that steps past
the technical stuff). There's too much to do, not enough time or
energy to do it all.

It really should be something all players help out on. As GM, I'll
read over and approve stuff (probably slightly after it goes up, given
the medium) for game use, but building pages should ideally be a
player thing.

Part of what this requires is an interface that is as "code-free" as
possible, but it also requires player effort. Effort in maintaining
their own pages, at least.

I don't know how achievable that is. That's why it's labeled a dream,
not a plan.

But it's certainly what I'd like to see happen.

Funny thing is, it also helps with the primary objective of our web
presence: Advertising the game and drawing in new players.

Which is a nice bonus.
---

Next up:

Right now, I have country writeups accepted and locked in from:

USA (Pat B)
Brazil (Ian)
Ethiopia (Dylan)
China (Chris)
Japan (Mike Downey)

I'm waiting to hear from:

Russia (Lisa)
UK (Mike Brittain)
Canada (Iain)
And whichever country me and Bryan settle on for him if he decides to play.

Just a quick reminder on how it's supposed to work:

1. Look at the regional timelines I sent out.
2. Using the format I posted at least as a base (you can always add
more sections!), draw up your first draft.
3. Send that draft to me. Not the list! Oh, and please do not subject
the draft what you will title the final copy. Gmail hates that.
4. I'll look it over and reply with my commentary/bright ideas/quibbles.
5. Work on the draft from there, send to me again.
6. When we're both happy with it, I'll tell you to post it to the list.
7. Post it to WAR_OOC at esteroic.com with the subject line "<country>
2013". Not the IC list as has been done by everybody except Buckley (I
should have made that clearer, so it's really my fault). This is
essential, because the lists archive by month, and if the country
profiles are mixed with the IC postings (as I expect to begin play
shortly after 4 July) they will be hell to find. That's bad for
everybody.

Follow these steps in order, and the universe will remain happy and
balanced, and your GM will smile upon you. You may not see any benefit
to that, but I assure you there is. Fail to, and I might get a bit
grumpy, because these really are not hard directions to follow.:)
---

Yeah, about play starting, another reminder of how things are going to work:

Our POD is 0000 US EDT (Midnight in New York, to be simple about it),
July 4, 2009. If it hits the media before that time, it happened
in-game. If not, it didn't, even if it happened before the POD. There
will inevitably be events which blur the line, I'll rule on those as
they're brought to my attention.

Play will actually -begin- with a post from me to the IC list, one
which (if all country writeups are in by that point) will be sent
sometime on July 5, 2009. If it takes longer to get all the country
writeups in, okay. We can wait.

The IC start date will be Sunday, January 20, 2013. This is somewhat
arbitrarily chosen, as only the US has (among countries in play)
incredibly fixed Presidential terms, and it doesn't seem fair to
Buckley to start it earlier and leave him waiting to get going.
---

8, possibly 9 players. If activity holds up to expectations, it'll
mean World Reports (which I've decided we'll be going with for now)
may take some time to write.

Nonetheless, regardless of that fact, I'm pleased - no, actually a
little amazed, to see that so many people came back. This is, for the
record, the upper end of the expectations I had for WAR at relaunch.
10 is accommodatable (Yes, I think I just created a new word), but
would be slightly scary. Beyond 10 I realize I'll probably need to
think up new approaches to a lot of things.
---

About World Reports:

If anybody wants to be helpful if a not-really-technical way, they can
send to me (off-list only) a possible template for a World Report. By
which I mean, something where everything's set up and I only have to
fill in fields and narrative. I'll pick the (very subjective) best for
actual use. Make sure you use only plain text - that displays best on
the archives.

Because we're so big, expect World Reports approximately every 2
weeks, covering 2 IC weeks (14 days). Yes, a 1:1 time progression. For
now, it keeps things simple. For another, every 2 weeks means I'm not
-quite- scrambling to get another one out as soon as I finish the
first one. I may implement a cut-off time for posts to be included in
the WR so as to give myself time to write.

I don't expect to need to draft anyone to help, but I leave open to
myself the option.
---
GMing:

Which brings up another thing:

I'm not playing a country. This is not a misprint. Certainly, everyone
has remarked on it - with reason, given that there's rarely been a
time in which I haven't played a country, even while GMing. There are
good reasons for this change, but mostly it's because I couldn't fully
imagine a country and its cast of characters at present, not to the
degree I prefer if I'm going to play a country.

Rather, I'll be playing NPCs. From the Queen to the Pope to the Chief
Justice of the US Supreme Court to whatever else, you can call on me
to write NPCs. Be advised that I'll write them as realistically as I
can pull off; this may mean your plans get derailed on occasion. Just
send to me the start of the post, and we'll go from there. Not
required that you go through me, but it certainly prevents me from
having idle hands. *Evil GM grin*

NPCs should be read fairly loosely to mean "anyone not a player character".
---
AGMs:

There won't be assistant GMs this go-around. Nor co-GMs.

At least, I can't think up any reason to have them that outweighs the
hassles they historically bring. If we get bigger, I may reconsider my
stance, but I'm going to need to think hard on it.

What will happen, on the other hand, is a lot of delegation of tasks.

I will remain the sole GM. I essentially own the game this time - if
the Secret Service or FBI wants to knock on anyone's door, it should
be mine. *grin* More seriously, this keeps the responsibility for
guiding the game in one pair of hands.

I will, however, delegate (happily at times) various OOC tasks
generally handled by the GM on other games, but that I just don't have
the skill, interest, or time for, as the case may be.

At the moment, there are two such tasks: Web stuff and advertising.

We need one person who can handle our web presence - whether that be
building the Wiki's basic frame or whatever else gets decided on.
Mostly, this will consist of the technical end - actual
content-writing I spoke of above.

Next up, advertising. It's essential for a game, but it's also
something that takes a certain skill. Skill which I do not have. This
person needs to find places to advertise, write the ad-blurbs
required, and keep them posted.

I don't foresee our advertising happening other than on the web, but I
would not be adverse to authorizing other methods of advertising.
---

I think that wraps up this update.

If you got this far, you earn a cookie.

John