[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

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
>