Re: [eia] escrow for 2nd's

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm divided on this.

I can't argue with wanting to speed the game up.

However, I don't like not letting a player make his own decisions.

However, there have been some very long delays (and I have been one of
the guilty parties.)

However I don't like one player making decisions for 2 countries.

However I do think the game will pick up (barring the unexpected, I have my next 6 months figured out and ready to send).

> 
> > 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

-- 
Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Play Sanctum: Online CCG
http://www.sanctum.nioga.net/


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