[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

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
>