On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Charles Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't understand. My reports on Okinawa and Parties have never been late > and neither of these aspects of the game are overly complicated, although > they may be flawed in other ways. The problem we have is not enough > gameplay, and you're proposing to get rid of what little we have.
Okinawa and Parties have not contributed to productive gameplay at all (except the general election, but I think that my alternate plan for that will work just as well), and they are distracting from the core, which must be supported first and foremost. And they increase complexity of the game, which leads people away from it. > As for why we're in a lull, that's because a bunch of players left, all, > AFAIK, for RL reasons. Not an overcomplicated ruleset (although there are > improvements to be made in that area, and I'm a fan of omd's proto, I don't > think it particularly affects activity levels). Note that your proposals > don't reduce the recordkeeping burden of any of the vacant offices (in fact > they increase it slightly where budget switches are transferred). While this is true, it a) frees up more effort and time from other parts of the game and b) increases interest in the vacant offices. >> Proposal: Handshake Deals are Enough (AI=3, PF=120) > > FOR, but I don't think it will make much difference. Contracts are a much > more natural idea. I don't like them. >> To each of the promises referred to in the Horton's report as >> }}} > > Something missing here? Nothing, just a stray sentence. Easy enough to leave as is since I've paid the fee. >> Proposal: Better Interest (AI=2, PF=40) > > FOR. Maybe the reward switch is set a little high, but that can be an > election issue. It's above distributability so that paying once to distribute an II=1 proposal will earn you back a slight profit.
