[MN-dip] Thanks to all who played

[T & P Woodhouse]

Ryan,
   I can play hours longer on Saturdays or do the six unit removal idea.
Also, please count me in for a computer game.  I'm checking around for a
game master.

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ry4an Brase" <ry4an@ry4an.org>
To: <mn-dip@ry4an.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [MN-dip] Thanks to all who played


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> MN-dip mailing list
> MN-dip@ry4an.org
> http://ry4an.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mn-dip
>
>