[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

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
>