[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

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
>>
>