Ben you certainly understand me better than Chris did.
···
From: Benjamin Shushan <bshushan@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Questions about new mapping program
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:51:44 -0400Done.
b
ps My Two Cents (American): There are arguments both for and against
the mapping program. It does "reward laziness" in a sense. But if we
want to stay true to that sense in other ways, we might find ourselves
moving back towards an agri-centric way of living. (That is, an economic
and social structure built around the fact that most of the population
is involved in the growing, harvesting, distribution, or preparation of
food - aka, how most humans lived during most of recorded history).
This might be a viable alternative for those who wish to "get back to
the land" in search of a more "real" existence. Then again, Pol Pot
attempted something along those lines, and it had its price (not the
least of which was murder on a scale that can only be labeled genocidal)
... :):)All in all, using machines to do essentially mundane work (especially
that which is time-consuming) is the hallmark of "progress" in the
modern sense. It has several major benefits. Yes, it allows people to
do what they do best (well, some people ...), in the sense of "freeing
us" to "be creative." It also allows for an absoutely essential element
to the formation of society as we now know it - _specialization_.Yes, "leveraging" human ability through machines/processes levels the
playing field, and the development, distribution and use of the mapping
program does seem (I won't _commit_ 'til I've seen and used it) to be an
extension of this theme within MEPBM. Personally, I've been able to
enjoy the advantage of well-processed information by "specializing" in
forming (and being a part of) teams with members have been committed to
the "banality" of data collection and distribution, so that the whole
team could focus on _analysis_ of that information. Any team we'd play
would have to do the same to have a chance against us. Now, any team
that cares to will be able to do so without too much effort (an
exponentially smaller amount of work).OTOH, the teams I play with will have that much more time and energy to
engage in analysis and creative strategic and tactical thought. And to
"specialize." Also, I think it is important to note that experience
will still play a _huge_ role in "team quality." Also, and this is
perhaps an even more impactful point, I am sure that there will be ways
to use "the mapping program" for information analysis beyond that which
the proposed program is intended to directly provide. In fact, I am
_certain_ there are useful information gathering/distribution/analysis
processes, which allready exist, that the program will _not_ be able to
fully "do" for players and teams. The program may facilitate these, but
(the point here is that) the imaginative use of this new tool will help
the clever teams to mine further information, and the _use_ of the tool
will still remain a significant variable, subject to effort, creativity,
and commitment.In short: Would it be in my best interests for the mapping program not
to be developed and made available? Almost certainly. Do I see it as a
significant "alteration" to the "equilibrium" currently in effect?
Absolutely. And we have no choice in the matter (it seems) -
notwithstanding the fact that Clint Et. Al. very specifically,
repeatedly, _asked_us_as_a_community_ whether we would be in favor of an
endeavor to create the very program now being questioned. My
recollection is that there was a resounding "yes" response to their
inquiries. In a way, this is perhaps yet another (sad) example of
people expressing their support of some _potential_ improvement, without
thinking about the true impact it might have. Then, when the
"improvement" is developed and implemented, and the _real_ ramifications
are at hand, there is great furor over the unforseen (if not
unforseeable) consequences.Wait a sec. On second thought, all of the above sounds completely off.
It clearly is flawed and has no validity. Further, no examples of the
dynamics I've suggsted above can be found anywhere in other arenas. ...
... ... Not so much!!!!!!!!Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
>>1) If, as I understand, the data is collated automatically for the whole
>>allegiance when the turn is processed, how will we cope with "effectively
>>aligned neutrals"?
>>
>
>They can send you their XML file and you add that to the database. Works
>fine. The Mapper creates an .ini and a .dat file - if anyone else has the
>program they can send those two files onto team-mates (aligned or
>otherwise). As with sharing pdfs sharing XML will probably be a part of
>the game if the Mapper takes off. For those using Yahoo some sterling
>work by ace investigators Brad, Scott and Dan have got a system that is
>easy to get the XMl saved properly as well.
>
>>2) Will I be able to get the population centre history, as I can in Alex
>>Maetzing's program, where I can click on a pop on the map and see at a
>>glance how many times it has changed hands, to whom, and on which turns?
>>
>
>*** Maybe - it's one of the things we'll look at. If someone can send me
>the Maetzing program then I can send it to Mark and he can compare
>it. Best if this is one of the players on the playtest so that we don't
>get lost with too many confusing requests.
>
>Clint
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail