Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rethinking

["Mike McGann" <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/31/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not convinced they do. I'm just shocked there wasn't a second
> objection to the hand grenade; it's not like the options for stopping
> overly powerful devices aren't there.  A measly 2 objections should be
> incredibly easy to muster against anything overly powerful...

But on a game that operates on a 12-day cycle, 2 days seems a little
too short when it comes to timing. I'm still for only making
blueprints through proposals via the standard 12-day cycle.

> and even with a missed objection deadline 2 players can submit impossibly high
> bids if one of them is willing to take the penalty for failing to
> purchase the device.

Only for unique devices. Non-unique devices could be much worse. It
would be too easy to deadlock the game if everyone purchases some kind
of device that hampers the proposal and voting process.

I'm for the repeal of 3-12 and 3-14 until something else can be worked
out. Would everyone be willing to cooperatively work on creating
replacement rules?

- Hose
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss