[War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now

[pentaj2 at Scranton.edu]

----- Original Message -----
From: Chazenesq2b at aol.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:48 pm
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Some discussions we need to have, right now
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com

> John, you have a 'very' subjective view of things, and that's 
> putting it  
> mildly.  I've been kind enough to lay off of you despite my 
> inclinations  before, 
> but keep whining about how you're the only one who does anything 
> and  I'll 
> start giving you something to cry about.

...Naturally, I see your post AFTER I send in my reply to Lisa...

> That being said, we need to keep the WR, as is I think.  I know, I 
> was  all 
> for abandoning it, but I honestly don't see any other way of 
> evaluating  
> actions.  This being said, I don't think we need things to be as 
> detailed  as we 
> normally are.  Any elaboration can be made OOC as to what the GM's 
> intentions 
> were.

I think you may be right. On the other hand, some part of me has 
always liked having the WR as sort of a central narrative to the game.

So, you're right...But how do we go 'less-detailed' without cutting 
out a lot of the storybits?

> I think the GM structure works fine.  Fight as we do John and I  
> normally get 
> things done.  Ian, can you check your E-mail filters?   You're 
> usually good 
> about getting back to me, but John has a perennial complaint  
> about not hearing 
> from you, are you blocking him by accident or something?

And to think, usually I blame Scranton. (I'll be shifting from this 
email address eventually, BUT I dunno when I lose it.)

> In terms of advertising, I'm not sure we 'need' advertising.  WAR  
> loans 
> itself to being a small group... it's what makes the world go 
> round...  haha.  In 
> either case, what we 'do' need are people who post.  

We -do- need advertising. At some point, we need fresh blood. It's 
gotten...Kinda bad.

> We get  new 
> applications 
> every now and again, and John to his credit does play the  welcome 
> wagon role 
> really well... 

Thank you for the praise, always appreciated.:) For what it's worth, 
we get an application *maybe* once every three or four months if we're 
lucky.

> however they're just 'not' following  through.  It 
> may be 
> frustration with the application process (ie the nation  bios) but 
> those are 
> something needed to keep WAR as is, and honestly I'd rather  they 
> not join up if 
> they don't have the initiative to work (with or without  help) on 
> those.  

I would agree, except that...Well, we -do- need fresh blood.

> In short, I think WAR is fine the way it is.  We're all a bit 
> upset  because 
> posting isn't what we're used to, which is fair enough, and cause 
> for  
> concern.  However WAR 'IS' still chugging along, despite the fact 
> many of  us have 
> grown from when we first signed up and gained other  
> responsibilities.  John's 
> graduated and looking for a job, Dan's in Grad  school, Pat and 
> Lisa are both 
> hard workers, even I managed to find a job.   And yes, that means 
> we have less 
> time for WAR, but the fact we 'make' time for  it should speak 
> highly of our 
> commitment to this game.  

Which it does. But in order for this creation we've all helped live to 
keep living, we gotta get new people in to replace for attrition.

> So, in summary... Mike I'd like to borrow you to surf Nova's web 
> site and  
> see what kind of publicity we're getting there.  Let me know, I 
> know Pat  Weber 
> fairly well, and if we can use some more 'glitz' or name time on 
> their  main 
> page to draw in the plebes, I'll ask him for it.
> 
> John, an idea occurs to me, about what Lisa said as WAR is usually 
> gained  
> towards Poli Sci types.  Why don't we try recruiting Poli Sci 
> types?   Blogs, 
> message boards, even school websites... peruse through them when 
> you have  the 
> time (this isn't time sensitive) and see if there are any 
> promising fields  for 
> tilling out there.  The more you can get, the better.  When we  
> both have a 
> moment we can gather whoever's interested in helping out together  
> and organize 
> a coherent recruitment strategy.

I...I wouldn't even know where to start looking. I'll be really 
honest: I am no salesman. I can't sell water to folks -in the desert-, 
it's that simple. I have no idea how to advertise.

I'm also not nearly as 'plugged in' as I once was. At the moment, I'll 
be honest, I'm kind of a shut-in.

If anyone *does* know, -speak up-.

The way I always explained WAR, say, to Kay, was this:

WAR is about the *story* that is history-in-the-making; it's not just 
a prettied-up game of Risk. Sometimes it's a lot drier story than your 
average Hollywood blockbuster; Sometimes, it can be more terrifying 
than filmmakers could ever, ever dream of. We've unintentionally 
managed to predict future events (or at least, likely probabilities) 
on at *least* one occasion. (Raise your hand if you were here for the 
Boston LNG tanker bombing that got doors knocked on by the FBI after 
9/11! Oh, and when Eric posted about North Korea going nuclear...the 
night before North Korea...went nuclear...)

But while we're mostly bookish types, we try to aim higher. For the 
stories, not merely dry facts. The emotions, the sensations, not 
merely a bland newsreading.

On our better days, we produce real emotions, or at least we get the 
reader to think. Hopefully, even when we don't hit that height, it's 
as much fun to read as it is to write.