To be frank, the entire reason I believe that Every Game Deserves a Chance is because of the hell my own game had to go through to get into the Org. There were arguments very similar to those being made against Dark Harvest and Never Ending Nights. Some local STs with a grudge against me, the really had very little to do with game, sought to prevent my game's entry into OWBN. A number of things were greatly exaggerated or told with extreme bias, and several were outright lies, all by local people wanting to quash my game. Yet we managed to get past it (and I only acquired a few grey hairs) and have been relatively productive members of the Org ever since
( ... )
If people are spreading lies about you in order to prevent your inclusion, and you can show they're lying, then prop them. Nobody wants to see the admissions process turn into immediate mudslinging and playing the victim card on both sides. This isn't the World Cup, it's LARP.
If I believed that the org had the gumption to say no in more cases, then I might be more willing to give a thumbs up to more lenient probationary periods. But as it stands, the first vote seems to be the only vote that matters, thus the need to take a stand there.
I obviously wasn't around for Crusade of Ashes' prop, but I still hear legitimate concerns over Dark Harvest that have nothing to do with anyone being a victim of another player's irrational ramblings. I talked with Bob for almost an hour about it last night. If you still want to talk it over, you know how to find me.
The problem is showing they're lying. Is it possible to prove that they are intentionally lying, or can they counter with just an "well that's how I remember it" defense? Even then, it mostly comes down to he-said-she-said. Sometimes the only recourse a given game has is to show the rest of the Org that what's being said isn't true, but how can that happen if they aren't given the opportunity? The Org won't pay attention to a troupe game
( ... )
I don't see why 6 months is such a big deal. Let them have their chance at bat like everyone else had to. And you're probably head/desking while reading this, and it's probably because I don't know about all the "crack that will be flying" once this game gets going. But I don't see how letting them in for the 8 months probation is going to hurt anyone.
I think the time preparing for the application process should demonstrate how much a game is willing to work with the local chronicles and how much due diligence they are willing to give to improve the local area. The probation period should be the time the game proves it is able to keep communication open and demonstrate what the game brings to the org.
At least that's what I am going on. I'll let you know in a few months how it turns out. :)
Comments 8
Reply
If I believed that the org had the gumption to say no in more cases, then I might be more willing to give a thumbs up to more lenient probationary periods. But as it stands, the first vote seems to be the only vote that matters, thus the need to take a stand there.
I obviously wasn't around for Crusade of Ashes' prop, but I still hear legitimate concerns over Dark Harvest that have nothing to do with anyone being a victim of another player's irrational ramblings. I talked with Bob for almost an hour about it last night. If you still want to talk it over, you know how to find me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I lol'd.
Reply
Council will weed out the wonk. (I would hope.)
Reply
Reply
At least that's what I am going on. I'll let you know in a few months how it turns out. :)
Reply
Leave a comment