[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

I think that quantifying every single post on the 1-10 scale would be
cumbersome, and that we should leave it to the critical thinking and
judgment of the writers and GMs to determine the acceptability and
probability of posts but the 1-10 scale could be a 'tiebreaker' method
in the event there is a disagreement about the probability of a post
succeeding.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Michael
Downey<michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>