Posted by tecwrg on 1/14/2012 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crickett13 on 1/14/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Oh and before anyone jumps to any conclusions no I am not an ex con.

So you're a current con?

No. I'm just married.

To Bubba who lives two cells, err blocks, errr doors down?

Well, thats 10 minutes I won't ever get back.  Thanks.

Your welcome. And on tuesdays, thursdays and everyother saturday I get to be the man

Posted by mrauseo on 1/14/2012 5:39:00 PM (view original):
Well, thats 10 minutes I won't ever get back.  Thanks.

Pretty certaain every minutes one you will not get back.

OK, WifS, if you're paying attention, this probably needs to be revisited.

The owners from the new world, Thome, are dropping out faster than Repub Presidential candidates.    Had you let them start a week ago, you'd have what might have been the most unstable world in HBD.  

I'm not against starting new worlds but the criteria should probably be examined.

First, asking for x-amount of n00bs and requiring a long-term committment from x-amount of original owners is like saying "Yes, sir.  You can try our McRib sandwich but you'll have to buy five of them before Friday or we're going to discontinue the sale of them."    N00bs may not like the game and bail before ST is over.
Second, you might ask for x-amount of owners with long-term committment records.   Getting 22 owners with no experience of sticking with a team for more than a few seasons isn't any better than bringing in n00bs.
Third, make sure the potential commish is actually screening owners rather than saying "OK, which division?" to anyone who inquires.  The commish doesn't make a world but the owners he lets in do.  Make him do some work.
Finally, give them a firm start date.  Make it x-number of days(I'd say 30-45) after they have the 32 committed.   If one bails, their 30 day wait starts over.  That prevents the "I want to join but only if it starts tomorrow" owner from getting in on it. 

OOOooohhh, shiny

When swrildude said he had been approved for a new world, I thought that meant the world would have been created forthwith.  If I had have known that "approved" for a new world being created means it doesn't start until 1-2 weeks or more into the future, I never would have bothered.  I don't want to have 3 worlds all rolling within a week of each other.  2 is enough.

It could be a month or two after being approved.  For Sweet Lou we got approved in early Oct and we started right before Christmas..

Posted by shobob on 1/17/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
When swrildude said he had been approved for a new world, I thought that meant the world would have been created forthwith.  If I had have known that "approved" for a new world being created means it doesn't start until 1-2 weeks or more into the future, I never would have bothered.  I don't want to have 3 worlds all rolling within a week of each other.  2 is enough.

This shouldn't have mattered.  As you well know, 98% of the worlds don't roll on Day 1.  You could have had the problem in S2-S5.    When you commit for 5 seasons, it doesn't mean "5 seasons as long as it doesn't roll when my other worlds roll", know what I mean?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
OK, WifS, if you're paying attention, this probably needs to be revisited.

The owners from the new world, Thome, are dropping out faster than Repub Presidential candidates.    Had you let them start a week ago, you'd have what might have been the most unstable world in HBD.  

I'm not against starting new worlds but the criteria should probably be examined.

First, asking for x-amount of n00bs and requiring a long-term committment from x-amount of original owners is like saying "Yes, sir.  You can try our McRib sandwich but you'll have to buy five of them before Friday or we're going to discontinue the sale of them."    N00bs may not like the game and bail before ST is over.
Second, you might ask for x-amount of owners with long-term committment records.   Getting 22 owners with no experience of sticking with a team for more than a few seasons isn't any better than bringing in n00bs.
Third, make sure the potential commish is actually screening owners rather than saying "OK, which division?" to anyone who inquires.  The commish doesn't make a world but the owners he lets in do.  Make him do some work.
Finally, give them a firm start date.  Make it x-number of days(I'd say 30-45) after they have the 32 committed.   If one bails, their 30 day wait starts over.  That prevents the "I want to join but only if it starts tomorrow" owner from getting in on it. 

why wouldn't these "rules" apply to worlds rolling over as well? pointless to start only at season 1 and not countinue.

How would you even apply any of that to a S17 world?

I understand your point.  But my record shows that I am good to live up to my comitments.  In 6 out of 8 worlds that I've joined (as opposed to taking on a replacement job), I've stick around for at least 6 seasons.  In "For Life", there was a 3 season commitment required.  I'm still there in season 4.  In the two worlds that I joined in which I was a one and done, I never said I'd commit to more than one.  I've never backed out on a commitment until now.

I'm not necessarily beating on you(although you really don't seem to have thought out your involvement in Thome very well)..  But you're one of the half dozen or so who've bailed on the world that started recruiting 10 days ago.   It filled in 3-4 days.    Something went very wrong and you were part of it. 

But MikeT, whats wrong with us changing our minds?  Its not like we signed a contract in our blood.  And really, isnt it best we do it before the world even starts?  If we decided after 1 season we didnt want to stay the world would be in pretty bad shape, another 4 seasons and it cant lose even 4 more people or the world will get erased?  Now I realise there is a good chance that WIS wont close it down unless it really proves to be a huge mistake where half the original owners are gone in 2 or 3 seasons...  Which isnt very likely Id think...