[War_ooc] Okay, so...

Sun Jun 21 17:48:33 EDT 2009

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
>