Re: [eia] need to speed things up

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>
>     Basically, I am just writing as I think here, so I apologize for the =
> rambling style of the last email.
> 
>     As I think more about it, my opinion is starting to solidify around =
> Suggestion #2.  I think that system should be workable with a minimum of =
> rules changes and a minimum of hard feelings.  Here's how I see it =
> working:
> 
> Each of us will choose a "2nd" and our choice will be on record.  =
> (Obviously, we can change our 2nd at any time, but such a change must be =
> announced to the rest of the group before it would take effect.)  The =
> designated 2nd (and that person alone) is empowered to make decisions =
> for the player if that player has not made a required decision in the =
> specified time period.
> 
> The time-period in question would be 24 hours.  If a decision is =
> required by a player, that player has 24 hours to respond.  If the =
> player does not respond in that time, then the 2nd will have an =
> additional 6 hours to make the necessary decision.  (A 2nd can send =
> along his decision early if he wants, but that decision will not be =
> official until the original player has had 24 hours to decide.)  If =
> neither the player nor the 2nd send a decision within 30 hours, then the =
> issue may be resolved by a roll of the die (in which each alternative is =
> given equal probability).
> 
> During times when a person is away from his computer for an extended =
> period of time (like JJ was this week), we should suspend the rules =
> during that time and cut that person some slack.  But hopefully a person =
> in that position would be kind enough to the rest of us to empower his =
> 2nd to make all his little decisions for him while he is away.  (I'm not =
> saying that a 2nd should be sending out land orders or economic orders, =
> but things like deciding whether to retire into the city or even =
> choosing of chits during battle are things that should be delegated to =
> the 2nd.)
> 
> This regime may sound a bit draconian.  I hope not.  I'm just trying to =
> find a way to speed things up in a way that will have minimal overall =
> effects on gameplay.  We all have an interest in actually finishing the =
> game.  I think this suggestion should be relatively effective at keeping =
> things moving while not making huge sacrifices with regard to our =
> individual autonomies.  (As long as we can trust our 2nd's to do what is =
> right for our country, there is minimal loss in autonomy.)
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> kdh

I like this idea, but I also doubt that it would ever apply to me, so I'm 
not sure how much my opinion matters.

I have two other thoughts on expediting the game:

1. Not long ago we had a situation in which we were waiting for Mike, and 
Mike thought he was waiting for someone else. This could be avoided in the 
future if at the end of every email taking some action it was mentioned 
what has to happen next. That way, anyone could easily determine whether 
we're waiting for them by looking at the "next" section of the last message.

2. I suspect that we'll soon be entering a period in which very little 
happens. Months in which there are no battles, e.g., should go quickly.

-- 
J.


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia