[Armus]

Two honest questions:

Can you give me another example of when English and 2E-English have produced a similar misunderstanding?

I've always played Psychological Pressure as follows: if I choose not to discard a card to use a skill I fail a mission's requirements and take the all stop if that's to my advantage. Is that the correct way to play it?

1.) Sure:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21630
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11973

Oh and one of the all-time classics:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11395

And here's the closer: a thread where I specifically asked an English major friend for her take, and in response Charlie established the precedent that "2E English" is a thing and you can't use classic English grammar rules.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=17484

2.) Yes. As soon as you add a cost to using the skill you are not required to pay the cost.

[The Prefect]

God forbid people request clarification on a card.

You have my apologies if I misinterpreted your intent.

The next 2e brand manager should drain the swamp.

That's much more like the online Nate I've come to know.

[The Prefect]

Two honest questions:

Can you give me another example of when English and 2E-English have produced a similar misunderstanding?

I've always played Psychological Pressure as follows: if I choose not to discard a card to use a skill I fail a mission's requirements and take the all stop if that's to my advantage. Is that the correct way to play it?

1.) Sure:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21630
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11973

Oh and one of the all-time classics:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11395

And here's the closer: a thread where I specifically asked an English major friend for her take, and in response Charlie established the precedent that "2E English" is a thing and you can't use classic English grammar rules.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=17484

2.) Yes. As soon as you add a cost to using the skill you are not required to pay the cost.

Thanks very much for sharing those. I was unaware of them. Those threads will likely be very educational as I continue to design.

[Armus]

Two honest questions:

Can you give me another example of when English and 2E-English have produced a similar misunderstanding?

I've always played Psychological Pressure as follows: if I choose not to discard a card to use a skill I fail a mission's requirements and take the all stop if that's to my advantage. Is that the correct way to play it?

1.) Sure:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21630
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11973

Oh and one of the all-time classics:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11395

And here's the closer: a thread where I specifically asked an English major friend for her take, and in response Charlie established the precedent that "2E English" is a thing and you can't use classic English grammar rules.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=17484

2.) Yes. As soon as you add a cost to using the skill you are not required to pay the cost.

Thanks very much for sharing those. I was unaware of them. Those threads will likely be very educational as I continue to design.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

You really want something to distract you from your graduate thesis, do a forum search on "2e English" filtered on the 2e Gameplay forum. There's literally over a decade of nerd fights involving this issue.



I didn't even touch on [null]-gate....

[The Prefect]

...

You really want something to distract you from your graduate thesis, do a forum search on "2e English" filtered on the 2e Gameplay forum. There's literally over a decade of nerd fights involving this issue.



I didn't even touch on [null]-gate....

My dissertation committee thanks you.

[Naetor]

God forbid people request clarification on a card.

You have my apologies if I misinterpreted your intent.

The next 2e brand manager should drain the swamp.

That's much more like the online Nate I've come to know.

There's too many people on teams, committees, and private forums for the good of this game. A card releases that half the players have seen for 6 months, there's no interest or excitement because those half are talking in private forums about cards scheduled for 2021.

Do you really need 6 players to have a multi-month discussion to determine if Casualties is too good?

[The Prefect]

There's too many people on teams, committees, and private forums for the good of this game. A card releases that half the players have seen for 6 months, there's no interest or excitement because those half are talking in private forums about cards scheduled for 2021.

Do you really need 6 players to have a multi-month discussion to determine if Casualties is too good?

I'm not sure what exactly it is you're objecting to here.

Design teams designing cards? Rule team reviewing cards? Errata team discussing errata? All of it? Are you saying you want every card and every decision about every card run like Will of the Collective? Are you saying you want everything to move faster?

You think the overall health of the 2e meta is good (at least so you've said) but you don't like the system in place that contributed to that meta?

You know, if you'd like a bigger say in what happens, you could always volunteer some of your time, right?

[Naetor]

There's too many people on teams, committees, and private forums for the good of this game. A card releases that half the players have seen for 6 months, there's no interest or excitement because those half are talking in private forums about cards scheduled for 2021.

Do you really need 6 players to have a multi-month discussion to determine if Casualties is too good?

I'm not sure what exactly it is you're objecting to here.

Design teams designing cards? Rule team reviewing cards? Errata team discussing errata? All of it? Are you saying you want every card and every decision about every card run like Will of the Collective? Are you saying you want everything to move faster?

You think the overall health of the 2e meta is good (at least so you've said) but you don't like the system in place that contributed to that meta?

You know, if you'd like a bigger say in what happens, you could always volunteer some of your time, right?

You mock Will of the Collective but within 12 hours of releasing a card the community is able to point out possible inconsistencies in a card, and within 24 hours there is a very strong case that the card doesn't do what is it designed to do.

In a healthy game, a designer might go back, make the adjustments, and this would be a non-issue. In an unhealthy you have a designer, who wasn't even a designer on this card, fanatically defend it by making personal insults at the people who pointed it out, using unimpressive analogies to their personal life.

It's clear too many people have too much personally invested into the 2e product. You really shouldn't get this mad over this, but here we are. The best solution I can think of is to make more people 2e consumers and less producers - the game needs less Green Badges, not more.

[The Prefect]

You mock Will of the Collective but within 12 hours of releasing a card the community is able to point out possible inconsistencies in a card, and within 24 hours there is a very strong case that the card doesn't do what is it designed to do.

I don't mock Will of the Collective at all. In fact, I quite enjoyed participating in the last one. I think it can be an excellent way to design single, simple cards if it's managed properly. I think it would be a bad way to design more complex cards, or cycles of cards exploring a common theme, or whole sets. And, it would certainly not be a guarantee of a quality product, after all the record on Will of the Collective is certainly mixed. That's not to say that the current design process never yields uneven results, of course it does. But, if you're looking for a guarantee of quality - Will of the Collective ain't it.

In a healthy game, a designer might go back, make the adjustments, and this would be a non-issue. In an unhealthy you have a designer, who wasn't even a designer on this card, fanatically defend it by making personal insults at the people who pointed it out, using unimpressive analogies to their personal life.

I agree that in an ideal state making changes to cards would be a fairly straight-forward, simple process. That it's not could be attributed to many factors, not the least of which would be a lack of volunteer man-hours available. Again, I'd encourage you to think about getting involved if you think you have something useful to contribute.

I'd also encourage you to think about everything involved with "changing a card" in a substantive way (obviosly im.not talking about correcting a typo). Even in its most straight-forward and efficient state, the process is multi-step: 1) volunteers have to agree that there's a problem; 2) volunteers have to agree on a solution or set of possible solutions; 3) each solution has to be tested; 4) the consensus solution has to be reviewed for any rules violations; 5) the new card has to be templated and uploaded to the site. So, even changing one card takes a significant number of time and effort - it doesn't just happen. I don't think you're grasping that reality properly.

I also find it amusing that you seem to think I'm "fanatical", that you misunderstand explanations of basic grammar as "unimpressive analogies to my personal life" (not to mention the passive aggressive swipe - kudos there), and that you seem to find it odd that a volunteer with time on his hands might be inclined to defend the work of other volunteers. I think all of that says far more about you than it does about me.

It's clear too many people have too much personally invested into the 2e product. You really shouldn't get this mad over this, but here we are. The best solution I can think of is to make more people 2e consumers and less producers - the game needs less Green Badges, not more.

I'm not mad. I just disagree with you. I don't know you well enough for you to make me mad. Irritated maybe. But, not mad.

But, to the substance of your argument (to the extent there is one). You seem to be advocating for two things simultaneously which are contradictory. On the one hand, you seem to want the whole community involved in design and testing by transferring design and testing duties to the community as a whole. On the other, you seem to be advocating for fewer people in charge of more aspects of production, thus fewer "producers" but with more power.

I'll try to address each briefly. I'll start with the "Will of the Collective" design and testing approach you seem to advocating for.

Organizations that create normal goods for public consumption tend to find it useful to manage their production processes in accordance with two basic ideas with roots in 18th century early capitalist thought: specialization and division of labor. Specialization allows for persons within the production process to concentrate on doing what they're good at.
Division labor divides the process up into parts or steps that can be assigned to different groups in order to improve efficiency. I think the early capitalists got these ideas right. Assuming the organization has a good concept, if the specialized and divided production process is managed effectively the organization should produce a quality product in a timely manner more often than not. A "Will of the Collective" approach to designing and testing whole sets removes specialization and division of labor from at least two parts of the process, and I think that's a bad idea.

As to the reduction in the number of volunteers - "fewer producers and more consumers" - I think your argument has three problems here. First, you're assuming producers aren't also consumers and therefore interested in the quality of the final product from both a production and consumption standpoint. I don't think that's a good assumption to make. Second, I think you're underestimating the amount of time and effort that goes into each step of the process. There are, after all, a limited number of people willing to volunteer and with a limited amount time to devote to volunteering. By reducing the number of volunteers, you're effectively heaping more work on fewer people. Ask yourself if you'd be willing to take on that burden? If your answer is, "no" then I think you'll be able to understand why this might be a bad idea. Third, fewer volunteers rather than more increases the possibility that the production process falls victim to group-think, and that's never a good idea.

What I think you ought to be arguing for is better management of the production process. If you did advocate for that, I imagine you would not be alone at all. In fact, Ross recently resigned in part because of the perception that Second Edition was being mismanaged. So, I do think the CC is taking steps to address this concern, and I agree it is a valid concern.

[Armus]

What I think you ought to be arguing for is better management of the production process. If you did advocate for that, I imagine you would not be alone at all. In fact, Ross recently resigned in part because of the perception that Second Edition was being mismanaged. So, I do think the CC is taking steps to address this concern, and I agree it is a valid concern.

Perception?!

I was generally following along for most of your post, but this draws a flag.

Especially coming from you, and you know what I'm talking about.

I'm not looking to stir up a nerd fight or speak ill of the nerd dead, but is anyone arguing that 2e wasn't being mismanaged?

[The Prefect]

Perception?!

I was generally following along for most of your post, but this draws a flag.

Especially coming from you, and you know what I'm talking about.

I'm not looking to stir up a nerd fight or speak ill of the nerd dead, but is anyone arguing that 2e wasn't being mismanaged?

I think perception is the right word. There could be ample evidence to validate the perception. It might be a perception widely shared. You and I might agree with the perception. But, it remains a perception.

Maybe I'm being too diplomatic in this case, but I think that's correct.

[Naetor]

I'd also encourage you to think about everything involved with "changing a card" in a substantive way (obviosly im.not talking about correcting a typo). Even in its most straight-forward and efficient state, the process is multi-step: 1) volunteers have to agree that there's a problem; 2) volunteers have to agree on a solution or set of possible solutions; 3) each solution has to be tested; 4) the consensus solution has to be reviewed for any rules violations; 5) the new card has to be templated and uploaded to the site. So, even changing one card takes a significant number of time and effort - it doesn't just happen. I don't think you're grasping that reality properly.

Sweet baby Jesus, how much redundancy do you need to make a not difficult decision?

But thanks for describing the swamp in greater detail. And I'm not saying these are bad people. I like most of them. But it's far too many.

[Clerasil ToB]

Could it be possible to return to the topic of this thread and stop discussing green badges once more? Maybe with an official statement of the rules departement?

[durgforaday]

Nate, you know I love you as much as I can love a displaced Iowan, via Birmingham, to the left coast can be loved but even I in my stupor of simplicity I read this card as " place 1 of your Exo or Med people in this mission attempt on a planet mission that I name that is in this game OR all your people attempting this mission are stopped". If you have an Exo or Med and choose not to place them on the mission in this game that I have chosen then all your people are stopped. If you wish to overcome this dilemma, you have to place an Exo or Med on the mission I chose in this game. All lawyering and name calling aside, this is pretty Fn clear. Could it have been worded in a more LEAGALEZE manner, most assuredly! But in the grand scheme it is very straight forward and I look forward to using it! Merry Christmas to all of you and I look forward to meeting and playing as many of you as I can in the up coming year

[GooeyChewie]

Ah, welcome back from the holidays and... SWEET CHRISTMAS WHAT HAPPENED HERE??

*reads everything*

Okay...

Could it be possible to return to the topic of this thread and stop discussing green badges once more? Maybe with an official statement of the rules departement?

I'm not the rules department, but the following quote comes from the rulebook:

All requirements on dilemmas and missions must be met, unless there is a
condition on doing so. For example: Personnel attempting a mission must
use their skills and attributes to complete the mission, unless an opponent’s
card has placed a cost on their use.

So if you can place an Exobiology or Medical personnel on the named planet, you must (unless Rules decides that placing a personnel on a planet counts as a "condition on doing so").