spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?

["Alex Truelsen" <a_skywalker85@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> gritter,
>
> You're misunderstanding the proposal.  Players are limited to 6000
> characters on the ballot per nweek, regardless of the number of
> proposals involved.  They could not submit forty 5000-character
> proposals.  They could submit forty *150-character* proposals, maximum.

Okay, fair enough. My bad. I misinterpreted that part. But I'm still utterly 
100% against any rule changes that allows players to submit forty proposals 
(of any length). Period.

-Yeah, guys, NO ONE has that many proposals with any merit in them. That's a 
lot of stupid proposals to have to read. Keep it down, all right? It's a 
simple matter, related to selling stuff. At low prices, you'll sell a lot, 
but not for much. At high prices, you'll sell only a few, but at a nice 
amount per item. You have to find a middle ground. Same here. A lot of 
proposals won't net you a lot of points because many of them won't pass.-

Bandwidth problems caused by volume of proposals are much more annoying than 
bandwidth problems caused by the length of a single proposal.

-And there are some good rules I've seen that were EXTREMELY long. They were 
only borderline legal, but they were long and they made the game work.-

I support Rule 212 because it limits the *number* of proposals, and I will 
support no proposal that
a) attempts to repeal 212
b) attempts to manage bandwidth by any metric other than number of proposals
c) attempts to increase the limit on number of proposals in the current 
version of 212.

The only one I might budge on in the future is c), but even that is 
EXTREMELY unlikely. Only if the game looked like it was going to die because 
of lack of proposals. Which doesn't seem to be an issue!

> In the rare event of that happening, that too will have its own
> self-policing effects, since more than a few players will just vote
> against all of them in exasperation.

Exactly. That's my point. It is *exasperating* to have to go through forty 
proposals. Whether they pass or not is not the point. Frankly, that itself 
is the problem -- there may be good proposals in those forty, but since I 
don't have the time to adequately consider forty proposals on their own 
merit I would have to vote on them based of the fact that some idiot sent in 
forty proposals.

I prefer to vote based on the merit of the proposal. Proposal Spam forces 
Those Of Us Who Have A Life into voting against or for proposals without 
being able to take appropriate time to debate and consider them effectively. 
Look at how much traffic we generate *with* a cap on proposals already!

The only acceptable bandwidth limitation (IMHO) is that which limits the 
number of proposals. Period.

-I second the Gritter.-

> The problem with the number-of-proposals limit is it is causing players
> to submit proposals containing multiple non-interdependent changes that
> might be adopted on their merits if they could be submitted as separate
> proposals.

Yup. That's exactly why it's so great. Forces players into submitting 
multiple (to a max of three) short, to-the-point proposals. Since you've 
only got three shots per week, players should put more thought and value 
into those three that you have to use than spamming the game with bunches of 
useless, dumb, ill-considered proposals.

And, best of all, it means there's a cap (number of players * 3) of 
proposals that anyone will have to deal with in a week. It prevents spam! 
Right now, that cap is manageable -- if our player roster doubled and 
everyone was proposing, I might even support *decreasing* the limit from 
three to two.

-We might do that already... The number of messages this game generates are 
enormous!-

> If you really want a limit on number of proposals as well, what about a
> 10-prop-per-nweek limit, plus the 6000-char. limit?

Character limits are an ineffective idea. First, it's damn hard to track and 
a burden on the admin. And it's a de facto limit now...long proposals are 
going to have a tough time passing, as you said yourself.

-Forget it being a burden on the admin, it's a burden on the players. What 
if you have to cut 127 letters, but if you do, the rule falls apart? You're, 
um, what's the word, SCREWED. Especially if it's the only rule you're 
proposing.-

Nope. I *love* 212 as it is now. Anything else just ain't bandwidth 
limitations!

Instead of trying to repeal bandwidth limitations, why don't you use what 
proposals you have more effectively?

-That might also work... but then again, this isn't a game based on 
efficient use of one's time *coughgremlinsscarveskicksintheasscough*, but 
it's a good waste of time...-

--gritter

                                      -Baron von Skippy-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com