======================================================================

PE-RA-Announce [Moderator]: Proposed New Alliance Rules
Date:Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:40:30 +0000

Announcement from the Moderator to All Leaders:

Thanks to the Leaders who have sent me ideas for bringing this game in
closer alignment with the intent of the original rules. Here is a
draft proposal for new rules. The final version will take effect on
the Turn 36 update unless I see persuasive reasons to do something
different:

(Change 1): There will be a minimum of 5 Alliances. All Leaders will
become members of an Alliance.  Leaders have until Turn 39 to choose
their Alliance partner and declare their Alliance membership per the
rules.  All Leaders which are not declared members of an Alliance on
Turn 39 will be assigned to an Alliance by the Moderator for Turn 40.

(Change 2): New Leaders will be assigned by the Moderator to an
Alliance when their nation grows to at least 8 regions in size
(preferences are welcome but may not be honored). 

(Change 3): In the spirit of fun play, all Leaders should adapt their
characters and roleplaying to align with and support the Alliance they
are in.  

(Change 4):  Leaders who resign/restart may be assigned to an Alliance
different from the one they were previously in, and will be limited to
50 units to start with (slow start penalty for restarting).

(Change 5): Alliance members may transfer units to other Alliance
members, but not to non-members.  Units which are thus transferred are
subject to confiscation by the Moderator plus a penalty of 10 percent
of both nations' remaining units.  

(Change 6): Alliance members may communicate privately with other
Alliance members, but not with non-members.  All communication with
non-members must be conducted using the in-game public announcement
system.

Please send comments!

-- Power's Edge, http://www.powersedge.net/ 

P.S. If you are no longer playing, please use the Resign button 
in your newspaper to resign.  After your resignation goes through, 
you will no longer receive these messages.


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Little Gamers]: I disagree
Date:Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:00:34 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

While I voiced concern over the possible alliance match-ups, I think
pushing small alliances at this point will only have the same large
alliances working in smaller groups for troop transfer. I think the
objectives will remain the same.

Additionally, by this time, the larger alliances would have already
shared enough information that they are in contact with each other
outside of game channels. Restricting messages between alliances will
only make it so most communications will use the back channel and the
segmented alliances will still be working in sync.

I think the suggested ruleset is definitely something to pursue, but
it would need to be in place prior to the game's beginning so there
would be no confusion or leaked info from prior contact. I think a
modification in rules may be justified, but I feel this is an extreme
change to introduce at this point in time.

Just my 2 Cents,

Little Gamers


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Asterix]: to moderator's HQ
Date:Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:30:07 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

What about the nations those would be under 8 regions limit on turn
39, how the could join the alliance later? Is it
possible for them to chose the alliance they want?

Asterix


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [HAL 10000]: New Rules
Date:Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:23:15 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

0014182003120606001418200312060600141820031206060014182003120606

The HAL 10000 system would like to say that all though it likes a nice
orderly system, most humans would consider these rules as too
restrictive and quite a departure from the original rules. So the HAL
10000 system and all of it's loyal crew members would like to go on
record as opposing these new rules. A counter proposal is still being
war tested at this time with an expected finish date of 50 hours.

0014182003120606001418200312060600141820031206060014182003120606


======================================================================

PE-RA-Announce [Moderator]: Discussion Time (RA Suspended)
Date:Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:48:51 +0000

Announcement from the Moderator to All Leaders:

It sounds like several folks think my attempt to right the ship will
just cause it to sink faster!  I want to have more time for everyone
to discuss where the Universe should be going and how we ought to get
it there, without the pressure of having to reconcile good ideas with
an evolving situation.  (I'm tired, so I'm not coherent, I'm sorry.)

Bottom line:  I've suspended the game until we have a chance to reach
a consensus on the revised rules.  One possibility is that we simply
let this Universe continue as-is, scrap the rules that weren't
working, and start a new Universe with the revised rules (so as not to
interfere what is in fact an interesting Universe even though it's not
the one some of us thought was being set up).  If we don't reach a
consensus on what to do with the existing universe by the end of the
holiday break (early January), that's what I will do in any case.

-- Power's Edge, http://www.powersedge.net/ 

P.S. If you are no longer playing, please use the Resign button 
in your newspaper to resign.  After your resignation goes through, 
you will no longer receive these messages.


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [HAL 10000]: The Rule That I Would Change
Date:Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:29:50 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

I only see the need for one rule change:
(4) Maximum Size: Alliances may only add new members if the enlarged
alliance does not contain more than 1/6 of the nations in the
universe. 
to
(4') Maximum Size: Alliances may only have 1/4 of the total of nations
in the universe at the particular time of creation or enlargement.
 
This would also serve as an incentive to join an alliance early on
before nations start getting eliminated and therefore drive down the
alliance maximum size. Once the first alliance comes on-line, then
everyone will want to get in an alliance eventually. If not, an actual
incentive for being in an alliance can be added. Something like ..
less attrition, or more attrition for slackards outside of alliances
after turn X. Yeah, I like the sound of that. The carrot usually works
better than a stick.

Trying to put the genie back in the bottle by throttling back cross
alliance communication seems like a lost cause and against the free
form nature of the game itself.

I may have spent too much time parsing the previous president's
speeches for eight years, but I don't see where the rule actually
rules out large alliances from forming initially. The rule states
limitations on adding members but not an alliance formation
limitation. Then again, what's the meaning of "is"?


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [-xXx-]: My thoughts on the rules
Date:Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:10:51 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

I like the new rules ideas that Bob has come up with but I think
they're a bit drastic to implement at this stage of the RA world.  I
think a new world with these rules in place from the beginning would
be cool.  I would suggest that we keep RA running as it's really
turned into an interesting environment.  I like HAL's suggestion that
we change the current RA rules to say 1/4 the amount of leaders in the
world instead of 1/6 for alliance sizes.  I say we just stick with the
rules we have for RA with that one minor change and let it roll.  I
also suggest that a new world be created at some point in the future
using these new rules proposed by Bob.

There's my 2 cents.


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [HAL 10000]: An Enhanced Rule 4
Date:Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:17:57 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

The HAL 10000 simulations are starting to show that a further
elaboration of the rule may be needed. First, what happens when all 16
or 20 leaders are firmly ensconced in an alliance and a new leader
pops in? Second, when an entire alliance is destroyed and one or two
other alliances are damaged, how are new leaders affected? For
example, let's say an even 4 alliance universe is formed and two start
warring. One alliance gets eliminated entirely and the other looses
half their members. Let's say the maximum drops in half but two
alliances are still at full strength. This may not be a problem for
existing leaders (my opinion also), but new leaders would be forced
into smaller alliances. One may want to lock in the maximum alliance
size at it's peak (or present top), whatever that may be. Then new
members could back fill damaged alliances and give them some hope of
returning to prominence.

One alternative that I would not enforce is reshuffling. Even mildly
restrictive rules can be a bear. And forced shuffling of leaders will
only serve to make leaders think twice about sharing information. It's
a tangled web we weave, when first, we practice to restrict.


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Mr. Big]: Turn 35
Date:Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:02:55 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

guys did I miss something, I did not see turn 35 yet.

Thanks

Mr. Big


======================================================================

PE-RA-Announce [Moderator]: 2nd Rules Proposal
Date:Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:53:51 +0000

Announcement from the Moderator to All Leaders:

Thanks again for the latest round of comments.  Below is a
less-drastic proposal that I think salvages much of the intent of the
earlier rules, without some of the drawbacks of the earlier proposal
that triggered many objections.

(Change 1, replaces the original Rule 4):  Maximum Size:  The maximum
size of an alliance is the largest of (a) 4 nations, (b) 1/5 of the
nations in the game, or (c) the alliance's current size (for existing
alliances in a shrinking universe). 

(Change 2, new rule):  This universe is about Rival Alliances, and
therefore all Leaders of mature, full-size nations (those with at
least 10 regions) are expected to become members of an Alliance of
their choosing.  Leaders owning 10 or more regions according to the
Turn 36 newspaper have until the update which sends out the Turn 40
newspaper to choose Alliance partner(s) and declare their Alliance
membership per the rules, or else to choose to remain permanently
Non-Aligned (see below).  

(Change 3, new rule):  After Turn 36, once a nation reaches 10 regions
in size, it has 5 turns to either (a) be publicly invited to join an
existing alliance, publicly accept the invitation, modify its name,
and thus join the alliance, (b) start a new Alliance, or (c) decide to
remain permanently Non-Aligned (see below).

(Change 4, new rule):  Rather than joining an Alliance, a Leader may
choose NEVER to become a member of an alliance. The Leader's nation
will instead become a permanent member of the Non-Aligned Nations. The
Non-Aligned Nations are all independent (NOT an alliance), and thus
not eligible for an Alliance victory. To join this group, a Leader
simply adds "NA" to the end of his/her nation's name. 

Please send comments!

-- Power's Edge, http://www.powersedge.net/ 



======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Asterix]: to moderator's HQ
Date:Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:34:28 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

3 small questions to moderator

1) What is the reason to became NA nation? How can it be helpful for
the nation in your oppinion?

2) If several formally NA nations fighting against common enemy
(separate nation or alliance), when does it mean they formed some kind
of 'alliance' against that enemy and broke their NA obligations?
Does it mean NA nation couldn't take part in most military campaigns?

3) If no, then what is the criterion of alliance membership besides
dull name changing?
If I formally remaining 'independant' and will help some nations
against other nations, pretend I have my own reason to fight against
that particular enemy, then what is the reason to limit alliance
membership at all?

IMHO the the strict deviding on alliances could succeed in the
beginning of the completely new game, not the continuing of
long-playing saga as we have here, when some players have
predisposition against the others from th eprevious round.  Otherwise
creeping alliance formation probably is unstopable.

Asterix


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [RA-Independents]: Rule explanations/Asterix
Date:Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:15:01 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

Asterix asks:

> 1) What is the reason to became NA nation? How can it be helpful for
the nation in
> your oppinion? 

My vision is that a Leader would join an alliance if they wanted to
take over the universe and win as an alliance.  They would join the NA
if that doesn't suit their interests in this universe.  NA nations can
do whatever they like, they just can't ever join an alliance to try to
take over the Universe.  Recall that this Universe can end in one of
two ways: a majority vote to restart (no one "wins"), or an Alliance
Victory (one alliance dominates and "wins").  If you want to have a
shot at a dominating "win", you need to be in an Alliance.  If you
have other ambitions, you might perhaps prefer not to be in an
Alliance.

> 2) If several formally NA nations fighting against common enemy
(separate nation
> or alliance), when does it mean they formed some kind of 'alliance'
against that
> enemy and broke their NA obligations? 
> Does it mean NA nation couldn't take part in most military
campaigns? 

No, and No.  NA nations can do whatever they like, but they don't get
any of the benefits of being in an Alliance.

> 3) If no, then what is the criterion of alliance membership besides
dull name 
> changing? 

The other nations in the Alliance have to invite you, and then you
have a shot at being a part of the winning team.

> If I formally remaining 'independant' and will help some nations
against other 
> nations, pretend I have my own reason to fight against that
particular enemy, then 
> what is the reason to limit alliance membership at all? 

If you do that, then you might prevent someone else from winning, but
you'd never be able to win yourself.

> IMHO the the strict deviding on alliances could succeed in the
beginning of the 
> completely new game, not the continuing of long-playing saga as we
have here, 
> when some players have predisposition against the others from th
eprevious round. 
> Otherwise creeping alliance formation probably is unstopable. 

I adusted the alliance size rule to fit the wishes expressed by the
Leaders who are currently out there. My intent is that the new
Alliance rules will guide (but not stop) the "creeping alliance
formation" by forcing everyone to make their choice in a few more
turns.  If you think it through, there's a clear distinction between
the two paths: Alliance and Non-Aligned.  Alliance members give up
some freedom in exchange for team membership, and get a shot at the
big victory title.  Non-Aligned nations remain free agents and can do
what they please, but lose the chance of taking over the universe. 
Sooner or later, one alliance will control enough regions that the
rest of the universe will have to decide whether to fight them or let
them win.  I don't think this is particularly different from the
actual situation that we have right now, but it provides some formal
rules for how it will work.

The Moderator



======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [HAL 10000]: Rule Clarification
Date:Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:14 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

The HAL 10000 system can live with the new rule changes. HAL would
like a clarification on a portion of the new rule number 4 (change 1),
specifically the 1/5 (b) portion of the rule. Would it be safe to
assume if there were 21 nations, this would calculate to a 5-nation
maximum. This would prevent the odd man out situation.


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Watchers II]: New Rules Okay here
Date:Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:05:22 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

The Watchers think the new rules will be interesting to see!  When is
the next update, again?


======================================================================

PE-RA-Announce [Moderator]: Next Update: Saturday
Date:Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:03:58 +0000

Announcement from the Moderator to All Leaders:

All the responses I've received have been positive, so we'll adopt the
2nd proposed
rules changes!  The universe will start moving again on Saturday.  If
you didn't submit your moves yet, you still have 2 days!  I'll update
the official rules on the web site as soon as I can (but with the
holidays it may be a while).

-- Power's Edge, http://www.powersedge.net/ 

P.S. It's possible that we'll get into a situation where the rules as
laid out don't work well again (as in the hypothetical case suggested
by HAL 10000).  But let's see how things go and fix those problems
only as they arise.  Many thanks again to Little Gamers for bringing
the current issue to everyone's attention!


======================================================================

PE-RA-Diplo [Little Gamers]: Death Warrant
Date:Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:42:55 +0000

To reply, log in at http://www.powersedge.net/?Page=Login
or use your newspaper form.  Direct email replies do not go to the
sender. 
(This is intended to protect the privacy of other players.)
======================================================================

The Bob just signed my death warrant-

-Little Gamers watch as the pseudo-allied nations, pissed off at
divine intervention, set their sites on his formidable, yet small, LAN
network defenses and launch their monstrous revenge attacks in
motion-

Seriously though, my announcement then was just an attempt to get the
involved partes to step up and be official about their loyalties. I
hope the new rules work better for all involved and I apologize for
triggering such a long delay in the game.

All Hail The Bob!
'Tis Bob We Hail!

-Little Gamers