Talk:Fandango Convention

Thanks to Feegle for typing that up. It's essentially all correct. I'd like to clarify here in the discussion area (no need to add this to the actual entry) that Cleaver never suggested we come up with any rules for war. We simply gave him a list of things that had been tarted about in Parlay in the past, and asked him up-front which ones we should and shouldn't submit /complains to OMs about. His response was (to paraphrase) "Don't complain about any of that stuff, except for extreme and repeated alt abuse, and any attempt to /complain flood the OMs will be frowned upon." I don't know if I still have the original email.

The rules the Mad Professor crafted for the Fandango Convention were actually more stringent than they needed to be, given Cleaver's response. The Professor prohibited some actions (notably /fo spying and token spying) in the Convention based on Fandango's personal interpretation of the TOS and our personal opinion about what wasn't fair and fun. So while the Fandango Convention was indeed sparked by a conversation with the Developers, it has not been expressly endorsed by them. I am proud to say it's been very effective at keeping OM intervention out of war, which was one of its primary intents.

When OMs resolve actions, it's through arbitration. Arbitration is no fun for anyone involved, but political negotiation is astoundingly fun for us role-playing junkies. The goals of the Convention were to reduce OM workload, increase fun political interaction, and add an element of sportsmanship to the war mechanic. Thus far it has worked fine.

To my knowledge, the Fandango Convention was the first War Convention ever implemented, although talk of doing something similar extended to the pre-Fandango days where many prominent players maintained that war was a broken mechanic.

--Looseweed 07:55, 3 March 2006 (PST)

I posted a copy of the convention on my flag's forum with a link back to the article here. Let me know if I should remove the copy and just link to it. I'd assume yer fine with it, but I just want to be sure.

--Kryptknight 15:56, 3 March 2006 (PST)

It's always fine to link to the wiki's articles. Enjoy! --Barrister 16:51, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Ah, I should have just read the Creative Commons link down there, since I attributed the copy paste job to Looseweed and the wiki, it's cool --Kryptknight 16:16, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Yeah, dude. Copy/paste whatever you like. Linking back here is an added courtesy that I appreciate, but I don't personally care, as long as the concept of sportsmanship in wars gets distributed to the players. That was the point. --Looseweed 7 March 2006 (PST)

Datedness

The bit about requiring distinguished SB is a bit dated, since we don't have SB anymore. I'm unsure what to do about that line though. --Thunderbird 15:15, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

Edit it out - since it is no longer relevant. What I'd do anyway. --Sagacious 15:36, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

Notorious Fandango is discussing how we want to handle the 'alt abuse' issue in the war convention right now. We'll post a revised version of the Convention to Parlay at some point, and we'll adjust the Wiki to match that. --Loose 4/14/06