[MN-dip] Thanks to all who played

[Ry4an Brase]

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:57:15PM -0600, Jim Swift wrote:
> Ry4an wrote:
> > So to summarize my modification of the proposal is:
> >
> > 1. Start at 10am
> > 2. Have no fixed ending time, but have "no-shame" for leaving after 7pm.
> >     This would likely include beginning the game somewhere with no fixed
> >     ending time.
> > 3. Allow departing players to proxy units, provide standing orders, or
> >     enter standing orders.
> > 4. Optionally and periodically: Discount the six centers owned by the
> >     smallest players.
> 
> A few comments:
> On point 2, with a stroke of the pen you changed it from a 6 hour
> commitment to a 9 hour commitment.  That's a 50% increase.  Are folks
> ok with that?  I fear the impact to our attendance of requiring the
> evening.  And that's quite a bit to swallow for new folks.  (We just
> got our first 7 player game after a year of
> trying -- don't want to scare everybody away.)
>
> Also, I fear the "legislature effect" -- if we say it's a 6 hour game, it will
> take 6 hours and 15 minutes to come to a resolution.  If we say it's a 9 hour
> game, it will take 9 hours and 15 minutes to a resolution.

That's an excellent point.  I'm up for 6 hours or 9 hours or whatever.
Do any of the 30+ people on this mailing list who have never said
anything have a preference?  You're already not attending, but would you
be even less likely to attend if games were 10am 'till 7pm?

> On point 3, you have "provide standing orders, or enter standing
> orders," which looks like the same thing.  Was one of those meant to
> be "go civil disorder?"

Absolutely it was supposed to be civil disorder.

> Re: what happens if the Source closes, I say record the state of the game and
> consider the game unfinished until it can be rescheduled (if ever) between the
> players still involved.  Remember, these aren't tournament games -- they don't
> absolutely have to be resolved.  (I do like playing at the Source.)

I like the source too, I just figure that if we don't have, in advance,
a policy for what to do if the source closes we'll have the same
running-down the clock occurances we have now.  If the goal is to avoid
them we pretty much either have to

    1. play somewhere that doesn't close
    2. have a pre-arranged place to move on closing
    3. have a prior agreement to continue the game "someday"

Option 2 is, in my eyes, unworkable.  Option three seems like a real
nod/wink cop-out as we all know the odds of us ever reconveniening are
incredibly remote.  Thus I proposed option 1 largely by default.  Do you
think we can say option 3 is policy with a straight face?

-- 
Ry4an Brase - http://ry4an.org