Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through May 03, 2002	25		05/03 04:27am
	Archive through May 24, 2002	25		05/24 03:17am
	Archive through May 26, 2002	25		05/26 06:20pm

---

Quote:

I recommend that we drop the discussion as to the worth of new proposals.

---

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Me too!

This "getting the last word" deal is getting old!



-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Word!

hee,hee

By Piotr Orbis Proszynski (Orbis) on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 09:59 pm: Edit

No way! Not until I get the last word in!

You... you... Jujube!

Orbis, name caller.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 01:20 am: Edit

I have no objection whatsoever to the introduction of new proposals or ideas to the game as it is. However, I do reserve the right to remaing highly critical of any proposals that come to light. The only way to judge the relative merit of any given idea is to subject it to harsh criticism and debate from all directions. If it manages to survive, then it has proven itself worthy of further testing and consideration, and mayhap even one day being adopted into the larger game as a whole.

No, it's not easy to come up with a proposal that will survive this rigorous process. But those of us old-timers from the 80s remember what happens when those standards were relaxed. To those of you who weren't there, trust me, it wasn't pretty. Rules regularly contradicted either themselves or each other. Many loopholes and wonky tactics evolved. It took the massive Doomsday project to clean it all up, and even that wasn't 100%.

So please forgive those of us old-schoolers who sometimes sound a bit harsh when we criticize a new proposal. It is in no way (at least for me) meant to impune the creativity or the intitiative of the proposer. We just want to make sure that anything that makes it into the final version of the game is worthy of being there.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 07:37 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The only way to judge the relative merit of any given idea is to subject it to harsh criticism and debate from all directions.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Jeff, I too am a "old timer". In fact barring the original playtesters, no one has been playing much longer than me. I bought the second game pack in the pile at SFBs first release(in our game shop). Its been a long time but I think that was in 1978. It came in a zip lock bag. Then came Basic Set. and so on. I've seen it all with SFB (sadly except for real Tourni play). I have stacks of Starletters and Star Fleet times. Read all the news. I've read so much of SVC's stuff I feel like I know him. As far as this game goes, I trust in him compleatly. New Rules, to me, pose no threat to game balance because of him and Petrick. During Commanders Edition great lessons were learned and resulted in the great game we have now, Captains Edition. So, the core is balanced. Don't like the new rule, don't play it. You still have a huge game to play. For me, my favorite reading is SFB. New rules, fiction, new ships. I'll take them all.

Now, please critcize new rules posted. But please don't just dismiss them because they are new. And please, don't criticize the writers. Thats not what we're here for.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Loren, your mind's playing a trick on you, first was the 'Pocket Edition' (the 'ziploc') then came the 'Designer's Edition' (first box set) THEN the 'Basic Set' (or 'Commanders Ed').

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Yes, that is the proper wording. I have all but the commanders Ed.(including the expantions) During that time I was low on dough then word of "Doomsday" Edition kept me back until "Captains". They are all in safe keeping some where at my folks place, so I could not go through them. Thanks Stewart. You're exactly right.