Jonathan Van Matre on 23 Jan 2002 18:40:12 -0000


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

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


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.
> 
> 
>