Re: [spoon-discuss] Prop 860

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/18/02 at 11:17 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> 4. This doesn't allow for the formation of proposals by societies with
>no=
>>  players (which, for all I know, you regard as a feature).  This would=
>>  prevent the functioning of, for example, House Grem in my proposal, and=
>>  also any gremlin that had been tasked to create proposals.
>
> I've got nothing against gremlins being given chits through other
>methods, or having an explicit get-out from needing chits.  And you
>could modify your proposal to give House Grem chits.

I'd prefer not to do that unless I know your proposal would pass.  But the "get-out" isn't at the gremlin level, because it's the Society itself that needs the chit, and can't get it from gremlins.

>> 6. Why are you eliminating the failed proposal points penalty?  And why
>are=
>>  you punishing players for the failure of their proposals by effectively=
>>  reducing their bandwidth?
>
> You can't take both sides of that argument!  I've replaced a direct
>points penalty for failed proposals with an indirect one.

I'm not taking both sides of the argument.  Those are two separate arguments.  At the moment, if someone's proposals fail, e loses points but can still make five more proposals in the following nweek.  Under your method, a player with zero points whose proposals fail loses eir chits and can't get more, except for the one e gets nweekly.  This is a "poor-get-poorer" mechanism in terms of bandwidth.

						Glotmorf


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