I'm curious about a possible contradiction. A clarification would be welcome.
Always a pleasure.
In the House Rules Harley, says it has only intervened in one game in the past three years. I know some people reject the accusation that Harley is
over intrusive in these games. Below you say "partlly due to a lot of effort on our part" there is less friendly-force on friendly-force activity.
Yes we've reduced the impact DGE/GSI's VPs have on game play and that has had a big impact so there's no real reward for doing so. Also the game changed a lot over the years so that the way players play the game has changed - I think that email and sharing of PDFs more regularly has done that. Not sure if the latter is anything to do with us. Generally the players who did attack their allies no longer play the game as well as the sort of player who did this doesn't appreciate the system we run. There are less players running names under pseudonyms for example - how can I tell for definite? I can't, but I have a lot of subjective experience at this sort of thing and am pretty sure that's that case. (I also have some definite situations where a player has owned up to such things if that helps give my subjective experience any value).
So, just what was this lot of effort? Presumably many instances requires a lot of effort. In what situations do you intervene and which ones do you
not?
Depends on the situation. A recent one was we were asked to find out if a player was playing so we contacted that player as I thought that there was a problem that could be averted if he missed a turn. If you want me to list every situation where we have added a service and where that was enacted I'm sorry I would not feel that a valid use of my time on player's behalf.
Thinking along these lines it strikes me that you have put forth so many manhours ans effort on this PRS that the temptation to intervene in this
must be present.
Yes, of course such a temptation is there. If I see money on the floor it's tempting to pick it up and keep it for myself, but I won't. If you are saying am I ethical enough to not interfere then I think I am but only time can tell.
If it ends up a bad idea then I am also prepared to let it go. I'm a reasonable enough person. Some projects work, others don't. So far we've been pretty successful with them but only time can tell with this one. It actually takes me a lot more time to answer these sort of emails, I've asked before if I should reduce such man hours on that but so far there's been no response.
An example from a couple of months ago comes to mind. You wanted to reject Council of the Wise votes because those players voted for a
player who did vote himself.
Correct - his votes were not counted as he did not complete the form correctly. I had contacted the players concerned but nothing was returned and the date for sending in the votes was missed. (In the same way for turns if you miss the deadline we don't process the turns). Although personally I am not a big fan of this voting system I have supported it as best I can as it was requested by players.
Sure sounds like an extra subjective layer to me.
How so - the rules are clear on this point? Clearly as humans we're open to making errors, but part of the reason that I actually listen to these sort of emails is to attempt to give the players what they want and what is best for the game. If you are attempting to say that we will make subjective rulings on situations, the answer is yes we will but only within the guidelines we have set - which are open for debate and change if they can be improved. I think we're pretty open in such a manner - it does open us up to attacks like this one but that's the price you pay for such things.
For example sometimes players ask for a delay in turns (say a family situation has developed). We then contact the teams and ask if that's appropriate and if the other team is up for it and a replacement player for that turn can't be found we'll certainly consider using our "subjective experience" and "interfere". Note consider doing so. If the opposing team says no thanks run the turn then we will do that but we do allow for the human element.
How hard and how often are you going to nudge this baby to meet your expectations?
I don't know - I have no expectations on what "this baby" will do. I think it will add some fun to the game that's all for minimal effort. Ditto colour turnsheets, AutoMarket, Grudge games, World Championships or the War of the Ring Variant game. That's reflected in the player base I think.
In answer to your question: minimally to zero I would guesstimate? I don't particularly appreciate trying to defend each and every decision I have to make but if that's what you want I can do that. As Monty Python says "I never expected the Spanish Inquisition"! 
Some players will use this to attack us due to ulterior methods but that's okay as well. Some even have serious worries about the impact that this will have on the game - to which I have attempted to answer. I think only time will tell. I don't think that backing off due to a few vocal players is good for the game, but backing off because it doesn't work and damages the game is a good reason to do so and I am prepared to do that. For example SS turns used to cost but we removed that, and had to battle with GSI over it as well. We removed the charge as it was damaging to the game. Ditto a player using the loophole of going inactive when they were about to go bankrupt, and then getting money/a back-up and then reactivating. We certainly interfered there and I think for the good of the game.
You've mentioned that you are worried that the economic aspect of us running a PRS system (on the Forum) is a waste of our time but I have analysed the impact it has compared with effort and it's about 1/2 hour work per week (and that's tied in with doing the GWCs, sending out game end reports etc). Compare that with the time that I've spent about answering emails on this subject during the last month.
Generally I think the game benefits from an active GM and an interactive player base. Anything that I can do to encourage that I will attempt to do so if I can as I am reasonably sure (based on 12 years of GMing PBM games full time, 19 years of playing PBMs) that this will make the game better for the majority. Our general policy is to make the best game we can and go from there.
Clint
