Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Emergencies are annoying

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Jamie Dallaire
>  <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  >  My intent is to allow for us to reserve the use of emergencies
>  >  (looooooong) for cases where the rules are broken. Uncertain
>  >  gamestates can be handled in a quicker fashion.
>
>  A problem is the whole multiple state issues that can arise. For
>  example, there is something ambiguous in the rules and it is unclear
>  if a Player can do X or not. So, a player performs X anyway, a
>  consultation gets submitted about performing X and there are two
>  states floating around until the consultation is resolved. This is
>  confusing. I have a hard enough time juggling around one state in my
>  head.
>
>  I think we just need to get rid of this whole multiple state thing
>  completely. Wooble mentioned something along these lines some time
>  ago--the minister in charge of the state picks what he or she thinks
>  is correct (or the most correct). That is what the state is. If a
>  player has an issue with it, they can first bring it up with the
>  minister in charge and if there is still disagreement, a consultation
>  can be submitted to resolve the dispute. I think we need to now get
>  away from the "I perform X. I submit the following consultation: "Can
>  I do X?"" pattern. We tend to overuse Consultations and they should be
>  reserved for when there is an actual dispute between two players.
>

We did this after the first emergency (remember the invalid actions
thing?). I believe it would have worked had we taken the time to
refine it, but there was such a big backlash to it that it was
completely scrapped during the next emergency.

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