RE: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Even so, the price is too low for preventing someone from voting the entire ballot.  

If you could target them to be cursed only related to one proposal (or a reasonable limit like 3), or if the price were *much* higher, I might go for this.

The ability to be cursed back sounds on the surface like it might be a deterrent to cursing, but I doubt it would be difficult for 2 players to collude to curse 2 others at the same time, effectively disabling both of the cursed players' options to retaliate.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wonko [mailto:dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!
> 
> 
> on 1/23/02 10:57 AM, Jonathan Van Matre at JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > It only costs a maximum of 50 points to eliminate the 2 
> most vocal opponents
> > of your proposal(s)?  Bugger that for a lark!
> > 
> > There's already some disincentive to openly discussing 
> improvements to
> > proposals because of the scoring...it's more profitable to 
> get points for
> > fixing the proposal with your own prop next nweek.  This 
> will only make it
> > much, much worse, because anyone who openly opposes any 
> proposal can be
> > prevented from voting on *any* proposals for a mere 25 points.
> > 
> > --Scoff!
> > Voting emphatically NO!
> 
> Key phrase of Prop 259: "any player who has not done so 
> already that nweek"
> 
> This means that you can only Curse one player each nweek. 
> Once you've done
> that, they're free to spend 15-25 points to Curse you back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wonko 
> Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on 
> fire and he'll be
> warm for the rest of his life.
> 
> 
>