1-2 and 4 are ok for me. I will not under any circumstances play under number 3.
Besides I believe you should continue your quest for perfect rules from start. It is easy to see that the few quarrels/discussions we had (annexations, Tonioz' choice of stubborness, any more?) so far was because we had to few or imprecise rules, not because we had too many rules.
Which incidentally yet again proves that we (you and me FAL and some more
) are the only ones that have understood this, how does rules add to an environment with a minimum of bad vibs among the players (there are of course also other important things: like having nice people in the campaign). The rest are children and their point of views in any future debates should be viewed suspiciously because either their experience in these matters is insufficient or their common sense is damaged, or both
.
------------
And another extremely important thing.
I believe that the crew should be people that have proven themselves to be reliable, and now I mean really reliable.
a) be there on time
b) play the whole session
c) if you cannot play the whole or part of the session; then try earnestly to get a sub yourself
d) no bad quits
e) behave nicely (referring to insults and alike) or at least not nasty
Perhaps one newbie can be allowed (one never knows about the newbies, they can turn out to be reliable or not but you must let them get a chance to prove they are worthy) and perhaps one with a little shady reputation (who promises to behave as if he was a reincarnation of Jesus
). Definitely not any well known unreliable player (and there are a lot of them in our community - we even had some in FN).
I hope more players like me are ready to say: we will not compete vs the unreliable until they have proven to have changed their selfish attitude.
