Advertisement
by General Halcones » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:20 am
by Sichuan Pepper » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:01 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
by Eist » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:46 am
Unibot III wrote:Frankly, the lows that people sink to in this game is perhaps the most disturbing thing about NationStates Gameplay.
by Frisbeeteria » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:05 am
by Galiantus II » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:52 pm
by Belschaft » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:01 pm
by Eist » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:36 pm
Belschaft wrote:I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.
Unibot III wrote:Frankly, the lows that people sink to in this game is perhaps the most disturbing thing about NationStates Gameplay.
by Cerian Quilor » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:45 pm
Galiantus II wrote:This is just a suggestion, but if we want to continue discussion just so when the summit opens up again the representatives have something to really debate and hound out, we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis. So instead of discussing ideas as ideas, discuss them in the context of "how can we solve this problem". That way, similar ideas could be debated and considered side by side instead of individually. Obviously we should also have a thread where players can go to officially place their ideas, but further discussion should be on problem-by-problem basis' in an environment of competition, instead of a spurratic "this sounds neat" environment, if we want to solve the current problems with the invasion game.
In the way of evaluating ideas, this gives us a 'rubric' of sorts to judge ideas. Some ideas would probably solve certain problems very well, but at the same time, worsen other problems or create new ones. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with the way we are doing things now, or we could limit these threads to representatives. But in some way, we do need to shift some of the focus to solving the problems we know exist.
by Galiantus II » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:31 pm
Cerian Quilor wrote:Galiantus II wrote:This is just a suggestion, but if we want to continue discussion just so when the summit opens up again the representatives have something to really debate and hound out, we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis. So instead of discussing ideas as ideas, discuss them in the context of "how can we solve this problem". That way, similar ideas could be debated and considered side by side instead of individually. Obviously we should also have a thread where players can go to officially place their ideas, but further discussion should be on problem-by-problem basis' in an environment of competition, instead of a spurratic "this sounds neat" environment, if we want to solve the current problems with the invasion game.
In the way of evaluating ideas, this gives us a 'rubric' of sorts to judge ideas. Some ideas would probably solve certain problems very well, but at the same time, worsen other problems or create new ones. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with the way we are doing things now, or we could limit these threads to representatives. But in some way, we do need to shift some of the focus to solving the problems we know exist.
Except that people disagree on what the problem is.
by Cerian Quilor » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:52 pm
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:49 am
Belschaft wrote:I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Ballotonia » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:33 am
by Cerian Quilor » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:33 am
by Eist » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:35 am
Unibot III wrote:Frankly, the lows that people sink to in this game is perhaps the most disturbing thing about NationStates Gameplay.
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:23 pm
Cerian Quilor wrote:Not sure what you mean by 5. How is the SC excluded from gameplay?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Frisbeeteria » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:52 pm
Galiantus II wrote:we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis.
Unibot III wrote:I think the tight format makes it difficult to achieve anything constructive.
Belschaft wrote:I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.
Advertisement
Return to Gameplay "R/D" Summit
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement