I just set this up. I noticed a poll asking the fastest turn around you'd "consider" playing. 1 week and even twice a week were highest (I'd do 24 hour turnaround for fun via internet form if....*cheap*...!).
I know there are many who feel 1 week isn't enough time to plan. It was more than enough to run turns when they were mailed, and considering most planning happens either right away with new results or immediately before the turn is due ("Oh crap, I'm playing this MEPBM game I've forgotten about for the last 10 days...!") I personally consider all these arguments merely supportive of my claim that 1 week games are better, and thus those who claim to want to play well will support 1 week games...! (like my logical leaps?).
So vote to either show MEGames that "Yes! There really IS a demand for 1 week games", or "No. We like it this way even if email has saved us all that time inbetween so quiet down already!"
Don't forget, too, that Clint has run more than one FTF game. I believe you
could classify those as "one hour turnround". So we know the lower limit...
Two week turns started in PBM because that was the shortest realistic
turnaround for play by mail in the days when diplomacy was conducted over
the phone and turns/orders were delivered by a postman. It seemed to
establish itself as a sort of standard and a lot of companies adopted it,
probably without even thinking about it. With the widespread adoption of
email and internet communications, a one week turnaround is completely
practical from the processing and diplomacy aspects. However, cost then
becomes a much bigger factor, especially if you're playing more than one
position or game.
For ME, I suspect that Clint and company are reaching the point where it's
difficult to reduce processing time further: they have already replaced a
lot of manual entry by Automagic (thus cleverly transferring the data entry
and checking burden onto us). Therefore, there is an absolute limit on the
number of games they can process in a day. If they switch to mainly one week
games, they may well, in fact, end up running *less* games rather than more
simply because of time constraints. Wonderful paradox, eh?
I just set this up. I noticed a poll asking the fastest turn around you'd
"consider" playing. 1 week and even twice a week were highest (I'd do 24 hour
turnaround for fun via internet form if....*cheap*...!).
I know there are many who feel 1 week isn't enough time to plan. It was more
than enough to run turns when they were mailed, and considering most planning
happens either right away with new results or immediately before the turn is
due ("Oh crap, I'm playing this MEPBM game I've forgotten about for the last
10 days...!") I personally consider all these arguments merely supportive of
my claim that 1 week games are better, and thus those who claim to want to
play well will support 1 week games...! (like my logical leaps?).
So vote to either show MEGames that "Yes! There really IS a demand for 1 week
games", or "No. We like it this way even if email has saved us all that time
inbetween so quiet down already!"
