Greg Ritter on 31 Dec 2001 20:24:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of bandwidth

No, if a player makes 0 proposals then they formula would be ((7*0)-35) or -35. At which point, the second sentence kicks in: "If 7n-35 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the same." So no change to the score. If they had proposed 6 proposals then the formula would be ((7*6)-35) or 7. Greater than zero, so they'd lose 7 points .... of course they also gain 3d6 points if the proposal passed, so if the sixth proposal proposal passed they'd score 3d6 - 7.

Mathematically, it functions as (I believe) the author intended....but I'm still not going to vote for it! :-)

I'll vote for "bandwidth rationing" -- hard limits on proposals per player -- because that's a potential problem that needs solving. This proposal just makes dumping dozens of proposals on the game riskier. It's a deterrent instead of a "regulation." In this instance -- because there's so much room for abuse and decay of game play -- I prefer a regulation.

At 12:08 AM 12/31/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Wonko wrote:

I amend my proposals entitled " The Many " to be the following:
<title> The Many </title>
If a rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" exists, amend its text to be the following !!!! delimited text. Otherwise, create a new rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" with that text.
At the beginning of each voting period, each player shall lose 7n-35 points, where n is the number of proposals e submitted which are on the current Ballot. If 7n-35 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the same. If e would lose more points than eir score, eir score becomes zero.
Alright, now you lose 7 points for each proposal beyond the fifth, and the !!!!'s delimit the right text.

Mmm, so by not making any proposals a player would gain 35 points ?? (or lose minus 35) You might want to take a second look at that.