Re: [s-b] nevermind

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/26/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Whereas a Player who apparently wants to run an Imperial Nomic but in
> his last attempt to do so tried to take no actions that would improve
> the game,
> and whereas I have grave doubts that the Public Displays would
> actually be maintained if this Player took all of the Ministries, I do
> the following:

Why not usurp him? Usurp on nday 11 and you will get the ministry of
your choice at the end of nday 1. If 219 passes, Also, bear in mind
that it is common for players (mainly Hose) to seize all ministries at
the start of an nweek, publish voting results and such, start the
clock, and then vacate or relinquish most ministries. Then again,
those players usually don't describe what they're doing as a "coup"
;-)

> When the Pause begins, I do the following:

This is a minor point, as this action isn't that time sensitive that
you can't just resubmit it IF a pause actually begins, but might as
well just make sure everyone agrees on this. My interpretation of 1-10
is that it doesn't allow for future game actions to be declared
relative to when a pause begins. The start of a pause doesn't seem to
me like "a specified time in the future" because it hinges on so many
contingencies and could very well happen in 30 real-world minutes or
in 15 days. In other words, I don't think it's really a TIME in the
future because it's not expressed in terms of either the real-world
clock or the in-game clock. I think it's more of an EVENT in the
future. I can't declare this action invalid because a) it hasn't
happened yet and b) that rule is gone, and it's just as well. But what
do others think? Is this a valid way of conducting business?

*Note, again, that this isn't an attack on the RP or on Wooble's
actions otherwise. The RP can very well be submitted once the pause
begins if it's invalid to call it in advance in this manner.

> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> I submit the following Refresh Proposal:
>
> {{
> In Rule 6-2, after "Game Action", add the words "without 2 Objections".
>
> }}
>
> END TRANSACTION

I laud the intentions behind this but it seems to me this way of doing
it would just serve to slow everything down. Do we really want to have
to wait 2 rdays before anything happens with a given ministry every
time that ministry becomes vacant? This would be a pain especially if
proposal 218 (making people hold onto ministries through nweek
transitions) ends up not passing, in which case we'd essentially be
adding two days to each nweek.

Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business