[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Michael Downey]

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
>