Girls VS Boys 7

[Sam~]

Originally Posted by Triangle

Any girl may post as -7 if she is playing while receving oral. (-6 if oral by LPV or Matt
Triangle posts as -15, if joining game above 75 with more than 3 boys
(Last 2 are jokes

Why less if by Matt? Damn, I was looking forward to that

(PS I think Ninas idea's are fairly simple to follow, as only 1st girl has to remember the rule. The rest will always be - 3)

[MarvHarvey]

Some great suggestions. I can't thank posts because my "thanks" are used up and seem slow to replenish.

I will try to be clear, but that leads to a lot of text.

Top scoring suggestions seem to be around different amounts for girls posting, according to whether they are 1st, 2nd, 3rd+ joining. That could help the end results and the increment problem qmu described of hitting the flow too hard on 2nd entry. I see a couple of different ideas and will study them today.

Nina makes a good point that having the 1st girl post 3 and 2nd post 5 might make it hard to start games. At the same time, it is one way of eliminating the need for a player to change the amount added - which has many potential problems.

In any case, I recommend great caution on those schemes where any player changes their amount posted at some point - that could be mega-confusing. There will be extra editing for all after the entry (2nd girl?) that causes the change becomes recognized. It can take a post or two before a new player is noticed by 1st girl, let alone all players. And so while only one would have to change her amount to be posted, she will have to go back and do extra edits for a post or two and will thus affect scores of others who have also been back to correct and make what they thought were final edits. So all players have to be aware of the rule and be ready to go back and make those changes. This could see all hell busting loose at this point, and will likely lead to some serious nattering. I see the value, but fear the confusion.

Having a game wait for 2 boys looks very good (Anna has some great ideas) because it reduces the situation where the 2nd barely joins in low 40s and the 3rd in mid-low 30s and by then they are deep in the glue and others fear to join. If this means we don't have a few extra 1v1 stomps or even 1v2 rollovers, then that might be OK. We need competitive games, I think. This could replace her idea (in blog) of having a different starting level than 50.

I laughed when I saw LPVs joking about a dictator, because I was already thinking that Triangle you may have to balance final selection of scoring methods based on your experience, rather than simply let the popularity of any one in a poll make the final decision. You have a keener eye for the flow, and how it will play out, than anyone else.

Triangle you may also want to consider what the ultimate objective really is in making changes to any rules. Different objectives may possibly have different implications.

• More balance in outcomes, and game longevity, are top of the heap as far as I can see, but I will give it more thought.
• Having more games get up and running might not actually be as important as having more competitive games up and running. If one side is winning more than 2/3 then it is probably still unbalanced, more than 3/4 it is unbalanced, and if more than 4/5 it is seriously unbalanced and is a problem to be dealt with.
• Anything that will reduce bickering is good.

Other good ideas from above:

• Split instructions - essentials and complete version. (And with this I suggest a complete re-write of any existing instructions carried forward. Some have text going back several versions and have been found to be unclear, or sometimes irrelevant or redundant.) Writing rules is not easy. Writing rules that are clear to all readers (many do not already have background) is especially difficult.
• Eliminate outside participation in settling issues or enforcing rules for a specific game - unless advice or arbitration is asked for. This is actually quite limited, but might be useful once in a while.
• Eliminating the denial thing - is it really still useful?
  • Eliminating storage for girls, most have max and replenish rapidly when they do use it.
• Summed posts - could be good, will cause a bit of fighting I think if heavy editing is required.

Additional:

• Triangle maybe put the instructions in a blog of your own where they can be edited or additions made as experience reveals the need.
• For those who post once (twice) and disappear: no punishment. Reduce wasted effort on them, and maybe eliminate some who play just to lose?
• What is it that drives many boys away soon after they become solid and regular 35-second posters?

I will post later if I have additions.


As always I am willing to assist further in any way I can.


Marv

[pirahnna]

Holy moly Jesus Christ Marv , either I'm too lazy or you are really good at writing !

[Sam~]

I do worry about possible confusion, arguments and difficulties keeping score if some girls are reducing by different amounts. (as everyone in the game does need to know who's reducing by what in case of mistakes) but I can't see another way around it, so the games more balanced if there's more than 1 girl playing.

[MarvHarvey]

Originally Posted by pirahnna

Holy moly Jesus Christ Marv , either I'm too lazy or you are really good at writing !

Thanks, I think!
I am lazy in lots of things, but sometimes a bit of effort is needed.

I try to be very clear, and so that means writing stuff out with a bit of detail, and in complete thoughts. With that bit of discipline, it pushes the length. I'm slow with typing, but it's necessary sometimes.

Writing clear rules for anything is much harder than most people think. So here I think it's necessary even if I might not play much for a while -- I fear I am not very popular here right now.

It is making things concise and still clear that is really hard.

[qmu]

OK, I am a masochist, I know I will end up playing again, so discussion time.

Originally Posted by Triangle

1st girl = 3, 2nd = 5, all others = 3 ( I know its not what you put but it keeps it simple)

All the points above, and "3rd player must be male" or "needs 2 boys to start" already circumvents the "1v1 start makes the score too low for others to join". I think first girl -5, others -3 is a good test and simple enough.

I have a free day from now on, do you guys want me o crunch some numbers with the -5/-3 rule?

Originally Posted by Triangle

Any girl may post as -7 if she is playing while receving oral. (-6 if oral by LPV or Matt

I am conflicted about this one. If a girl can keep up with the game while receiving oral she certainly deserves the -7. But it may be she can do it just because her partner sucks, then I fear what punishments her frustration would create

(I know it is a joke, I am just continuing it =p)

Will get to Marv's seminar presentation now.

(Just read the start, I can't believe you let the opportunity to say "I am out of thanks to give" go to waste)

[MarvHarvey]

Originally Posted by qmu

Will get to Marv's seminar presentation now.

(Just read the start, I can't believe you let the opportunity to say "I am out of thanks to give" go to waste)

Watch it you!
I think my "thank bank" finally has one in it now but you ain't gettin' it for that.

[qmu]

Originally Posted by MarvHarvey

• Triangle maybe put the instructions in a blog of your own where they can be edited or additions made as experience reveals the need.
• For those who post once (twice) and disappear: no punishment. Reduce wasted effort on them, and maybe eliminate some who play just to lose?

Will not comment on the rest as it seems to just summarize everything.
Good suggestions on these.

Originally Posted by MarvHarvey

• What is it that drives many boys away soon after they become solid and regular 35-second posters?

My take on this, first I'll consider "active player" not "35-second poster". Take me for example, I am at the top 10 posters here and I can only do the "less than 35 average" in games with 4 players or less; in any real game I drop to 45, but my masochist side keeps me coming back. Or Clever when she was active, she played almost everyday, and she usually was really slow because of mobile/4G issues. I don't think speed has anything to do with it.

Now why active players stop playing? From what I have seen:

• they quit gD, not GvB
• they found other stuff to do on the site
• they found a dom/sub or a gf/bf IRL
• the "guys never win" got to them
• stuck on long punishments (like me or pirahnna, we'll come back, but stacking punishments may be too much)
• cumulative denial got to them

On the last one, my main reason to suggest scrap denial or support alternatives to denial is exactly because there are a lot of pervs/horny people like me who cannot take long denial periods (3 days to 1 week, fine, I am not a horny teenager, but more than that is torture =p). And there were several cases of people I invited to play and the reply I got was something like "looks interesting/fun, but denial isn't for me".

Edit: just a final comment, may be relevant. Did you guys also notice GvB tends to gather older people here on gD? (I mean mid 20s, late 20s and early 30s mostly instead of the 18~21 that are way more common on gD?)

[PacifierGirl]

I'm actually going off on a detour because I'm just wondering about your algorithm or whatever that determines the fastest posters d: Does it take in to account no double posting so in a 1 versus 1, the posts could be further apart?

[Clever_one]

Originally Posted by qmu

Will not comment on the rest as it seems to just summarize everything.
Good suggestions on these.



My take on this, first I'll consider "active player" not "35-second poster". Take me for example, I am at the top 10 posters here and I can only do the "less than 35 average" in games with 4 players or less; in any real game I drop to 45, but my masochist side keeps me coming back. Or Clever when she was active, she played almost everyday, and she usually was really slow because of mobile/4G issues. I don't think speed has anything to do with it.

Now why active players stop playing? From what I have seen:

• they quit gD, not GvB
• they found other stuff to do on the site
• they found a dom/sub or a gf/bf IRL
• the "guys never win" got to them
• stuck on long punishments (like me or pirahnna, we'll come back, but stacking punishments may be too much)
• cumulative denial got to them

On the last one, my main reason to suggest scrap denial or support alternatives to denial is exactly because there are a lot of pervs/horny people like me who cannot take long denial periods (3 days to 1 week, fine, I am not a horny teenager, but more than that is torture =p). And there were several cases of people I invited to play and the reply I got was something like "looks interesting/fun, but denial isn't for me".

Clever feels like you may be too smart for her..... Or maybe Clever's week of two term papers has fried her bran......But yes.....Clever hates her 4/3G playing.....

[qmu]

Originally Posted by PacifierGirl

I'm actually going off on a detour because I'm just wondering about your algorithm or whatever that determines the fastest posters d: Does it take in to account no double posting so in a 1 versus 1, the posts could be further apart?

If I understood you, I just take ((minute of the last post)-(minute of first post))/(number of posts made) to get an estimation of my own speed. So nope!

If you are talking about the virtual model I have of GvB. Yep, it covers "no dp rule" different speeds, random chance for mistakes, mistakes because of simultaneous posting, and edit times.

[qmu]

Originally Posted by Clever_one

Clever feels like you may be too smart for her..... Or maybe Clever's week of two term papers has fried her bran......But yes.....Clever hates her 4/3G playing.....

Sorry Clever I didn't mean to offend o0' and I don't consider myself smarter than anyone here. I may have some knowledge/skills other people lack because of my work, the same as other people know and can do stuff I can't. I mean, I have zero people skills, and this led to the unspeakable arguments of this week...

It is actually so funny you wrote that, actual quote from a PM I wrote yesterday: "Clever for me is an enigma, and yes, really smart, she can convey more with a goofy 5 word phrase than I could with a 8k word text" (if you don't believe I can show a screenshot)

Finally, I was not trying to insult you for being slow in any way, just using an example. I tried twice to play on 3G on the phone, on RvB it went well, here was a disaster lol. Summing numbers is too hard when it is not +/-5...

[Triangle]

Questions to be voted on (I will post a summary of result tomorrow evening)

https://goo.gl/forms/w4rR1P1TJ1uBM0l22

To protect your identity please make sure you are not logged into google (maybe use a incognito mode) - to prevent risk of google telling me who you are, I have disabled what I can - but wanna be extra safe.

[jh81]

Originally Posted by qmu

Will not comment on the rest as it seems to just summarize everything.
Good suggestions on these.



My take on this, first I'll consider "active player" not "35-second poster". Take me for example, I am at the top 10 posters here and I can only do the "less than 35 average" in games with 4 players or less; in any real game I drop to 45, but my masochist side keeps me coming back. Or Clever when she was active, she played almost everyday, and she usually was really slow because of mobile/4G issues. I don't think speed has anything to do with it.

Now why active players stop playing? From what I have seen:

• they quit gD, not GvB
• they found other stuff to do on the site
• they found a dom/sub or a gf/bf IRL
• the "guys never win" got to them
• stuck on long punishments (like me or pirahnna, we'll come back, but stacking punishments may be too much)
• cumulative denial got to them

On the last one, my main reason to suggest scrap denial or support alternatives to denial is exactly because there are a lot of pervs/horny people like me who cannot take long denial periods (3 days to 1 week, fine, I am not a horny teenager, but more than that is torture =p). And there were several cases of people I invited to play and the reply I got was something like "looks interesting/fun, but denial isn't for me".

Edit: just a final comment, may be relevant. Did you guys also notice GvB tends to gather older people here on gD? (I mean mid 20s, late 20s and early 30s mostly instead of the 18~21 that are way more common on gD?)

Just throwing my two pennies in.

Why not have the starting male and female in a game as the "leaders" and they get included in any final five regardless if they were in the final five posters. The benefit to being a leader is that they get a bonus of +1 when they post.

Then maybe boys post +2 and girls post -4 (which for the leaders is +3/-5)

(Sort of like the Apprentice losing three, always includes the Team Captain)

As for the denial punishment, could the two "leaders" agree on what they are playing for; if they want to go crazy and bet 20 days denial then they won't get much assistance.

So I'd imagine:
B1: New game; if we lose I'd offer two days denial or a punishment thread to my stated limits. 53
G1: I'm in. If the girls lose, I'm offering a days denial. 48
B1: 50
B2: Sounds OK, 52
G2: Me too, 48
B1: Leader posting, 51
Etc

[Clever_one]

Originally Posted by qmu

Sorry Clever I didn't mean to offend o0' and I don't consider myself smarter than anyone here. I may have some knowledge/skills other people lack because of my work, the same as other people know and can do stuff I can't. I mean, I have zero people skills, and this led to the unspeakable arguments of this week...

It is actually so funny you wrote that, actual quote from a PM I wrote yesterday: "Clever for me is an enigma, and yes, really smart, she can convey more with a goofy 5 word phrase than I could with a 8k word text" (if you don't believe I can show a screenshot)

Finally, I was not trying to insult you for being slow in any way, just using an example. I tried twice to play on 3G on the phone, on RvB it went well, here was a disaster lol. Summing numbers is too hard when it is not +/-5...

Clever did not take any of this as an insult and hopes you didn't either. Additionally, Clever is happy to be an enigma.

She did have her moment of wordiness yesterday when she responded to a PM about what she likes about BvG. It was long winded and written in the form of rhetoric. The long and the short is, there is nothing like this anywhere else on gD. If there is, the maintainers certainly do not take as much care as Triangle and Nina to make it work. We have made friends and rivalries here because it is a game built on interaction. It is truly inspiring to watch everyone that cares about this game come together and work to keep it alive.

Don't worry either QMU. It takes special magical powers and a steel reserve not to throw a phone when playing these games over a mobile device. ~