Re: [eia] escrow for 2nd's

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Decisions like guard committal are hardly trivial things I'll leave up for
> grabs either.

I don't recall saying that they were trivial.  That's the point of choosing
someone (for instance, an ally) who you can trust to make decisions that are
in your country's best interests.

>  But I won't hand off important decisions to
> someone else because there is a desire to make this game a major life
priority.
>

Mike, no one is trying to make the game a major life priority.  (I'm student
teaching right now and barely have enough time to read and respond to
email.)  We'd just like to see the game end some day, preferably in less
than 10 years.  At our present pace, we are going slower than 1 month per
turn.  At that rate of speed, we might as well all just quit right now.
    Now, I realize that you are saying that you expect things to speed up.
And I hope you are right.  But even if you are right and things do speed up
for the time being, I still don't think that the rest of us should *ever* be
subjected to lengthy pauses like the ones we were recently subjected to.  To
take one example, I don't care how many battles a player is fighting, there
is *never* any reason for the rest of us to wait 5 days for a player to
decide whether he will take a +1 in the first round of combat.  I don't care
if that player didn't get the email, couldn't log on to the internet, or got
hit by a bus.  If there is a mechanism we can use that would allow these
incremental decisions to be made more quickly with minimal loss of player
sovereignty, then we should use it.

Let me be clear:  I am not saying that *any* decision in this game is
trivial.  On the contrary, the decision whether to take a +1 in the first
round of a combat could make or break the battle!  (But aren't all decisions
like that?)  What I am saying is that if a player is (for whatever reason)
unable to keep things moving, some trusted individual should be designated
who can make the decision for that person so that the rest of us do not have
to wait.  I just see it as common courtesy.
    We all understand that life intrudes sometimes, but I don't see why the
rest of us should have to wait for a single player to get his life together
when a trusted ally could make the necessary decisions for him.

> My personal feeling is you guys are way too fixated on making this game as
> fast as possible.

I would put it differently.  I would say that I am interested in ending the
game in as few (real) years as is feasible without sacrificing the spirit of
the game.  The longer this game takes, the less chance that we will ever
finish it.  I'm sure we all agree that it would be a shame to see all this
effort wasted.  I think that if we can find strategies to speed the game up
(from its current unsustainable rate), that's a good thing.  If that counts
as a fixation, then fine.  I'm fixated.
    Regardless, though, I think it is only common courtesy for someone to do
what they can to keep from inconveniencing others.  Since holding up the
game is an inconvenience to the other players, I would hope that everyone
would be interested in finding strategies to speed up the game at a minimal
sacrifice to each player's national interest.  By handpicking the individual
who would take control (temporarily - until you regain control of your life
or until the next major Phase of the turn, whichever comes first), it should
be possible to minimize the possibility that that individual would make
decisions that are not in your country's interest.  Obviously, the optimal
situation would be for each player to make their own decisions all the time.
But if for some reason a player is "lagging" and (either avoidably or
unavoidably) holding the rest of us back, there should be some mechanism to
deal with that.

    Now obviously, I'm not in charge here.  So if people think we are better
off without such a system, then that's fine.  Or if people would like to
tinker with the timeframes, that's fine, too.  It was only a suggestion.
But one way or the other, this game *has* to move faster!  In an email
sometime in the last week, Danny suggested a goal of a turn every 2 weeks.
I think that's an excellent target.  (At that rate the game would only last
5 years instead of the 12 year pace we are currently on.)  Maybe we can meet
that goal without a backup system.  But I think a backup system (like the
one I proposed) would be of great use when things start to slow down again
(as they almost certainly will).

kdh

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