So the issue was raised, received brief commentary and then got buried by a host of other things...but with the game start approaching I wanted to bring up the pacing issue and some potential alternatives.
Alternative A: Fixed timeline, "X" many weeks in real life = "Y" many months in game, issues which clearly spill past the imposed ratios invoke "unreal time"
Alternative B: Permanent unreal time: time changes will be made by mod-council announcements. That is we start 1 January 3401 and 1 Feb 3401 happens whenever the mod-council moves us forward (or Q1 3401 then it becomes Q2 3401, etc, etc, ad nauseum). No such thing as "unreal" time, once we jump forward time has passed.
Alternative C: Semi-permanent unreal time: Months (or quarters, years, etc) will be predesignated at a very long time-frame (e.g. 1 RL month = 1 IG Month) however the mod-council can jump forward at any time if the pace of the game dictates. No such thing as "unreal" time, once we jump forward time has passed.
Just off the top of my head option A provides the most predictability for those who want to gameplan long term but runs us in to the issue of invoking unreal time when folks have involved stories that take longer to write out than we have "time" for. Option B eliminates the possibility of storylines being forced to wrap up but sacrifices long-term predictability while also presenting the possibility that some time periods will drag on depressing participation outside of the folks whose storyline is at issue. Option C splits the difference and has plus and minuses from both options, by placing a hard cap on the length of each In Game time unit there is a definite maximum for how long things will take and the ability of the mods speeding time up should eliminate slow periods...but that comes at the cost of possibly forcing some storylines to be preemptively wrapped up and still not offering any firm assurance as to the speed of the game moving.
So I'm partial to option C because I think the benefits of splitting the difference outweigh the shortside from either perspective...but since we are all playing this poll goes up. I'm gonna let it run for 2 weeks which should give us a pretty solid answer in time for game start.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
I'm for things that limit "unreal time", but it's hard to avoid sometimes because it can be difficult to coordinate with others, especially for the meetings and conferences that happen.
I think option C is a pretty decent idea, but I'm still thinking about it.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
How about an Option A+: Sudden death? Instead of invoking a total unreal time players who go over are given a fixed amount of time (with some option to appeal to moderators) to finish that time periods storyline after which time moves forward. Lets say we play with 1 month real time is 1 year game time. Player A and Player B are in long diplomatic talks and are still going after the month of real time passes. Now we go to sudden death time, say 1 real week, were the players must hash out the rest of the talks or we just say something like "talks broke down for a couple of months and now they restart at the beginning of the next year." It seems to keep the predictability of Option A without the possibility of a couple players dragging turn 1 on forever. As interesting as complex diplomatic negotiations are it can be a drag upon players only tertiarily related to have to read through pages of politi-speak to parse out what is going on.
Otherwise, I really am fine with any option. My civilization is going to be generally terse in diplomacy so I don't think any time regime will impose upon me. I am more than willing to do what other players who want to negotiate and wrangle more want to do.
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO
We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
Semi-permanent is the only thing that makes sense in a game with this many players. Being stuck with a fixed timeline is not going to work if a lot of people are trying to get in on the same piece of storyline.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
I picked C: We can stretch out things where necessary, but when things drag along we can say "Finish this storyline in the next realtime week, because after that we start next in game year." to move things along.
My vote is for C, with the caveat that as a writer-in-practice I might write fluff set in the past, without any intention of changing the plot. It would just be me trying to write scenes from history, not me trying to tell anyone what to do.
