Re: [spoon-discuss] thoughts on props

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 11/15/02 at 9:28 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> >Proposal 1190/0 If it ain't broke...Well, it's broke now...
> >Hmm... I didn't expect this.
>
> What, my saying repeatedly all last nweek that two of my societies would be 
> rendered non-functional thanks to your prop didn't suggest it'd bother me?

I figured my proposal would bother you, since it intentionally removed 
something your society used (and could be called an exploit becuase you got 
extra bandwidth to play around with), and also temporarily held back WBE.  
Note the word temporary in relation to the second.  I like the idea of 
speeder upgrades.  But I did not expect you to react as violently as you 
have over the past few weeks.

> >Proposal 1192/0 Giving Societies Their Dues
> >Bad.  Some things, such as BAC, or the attribute Dead, were never meant 
> to
> >be transferable.  This lets anything you don't want, anything at all, be
> >sucked up by a society.  It also lets whoever's in charge suck up 
> anything
> >they want.  Plus there's the nasty possession issues when a grid object
> >stays on the grid and is at the same time possessed by a society.
>
> I am getting really tired of hearing how societies can victimize their 
> members.  Last nweek's society-wrecking prop passed on the issue that it 
> prevented societies from victimizing their members.
>
> That's why I put in the unanimous consent clause.  How many times do I have 
> to repeat this?  If everyone agrees to it, no one is getting victimized.  
> No one is going to be hit with any requirement that they didn't actively, 
> consciously sign up for, either because the charter contained that 
> requirement before they joined or because they consented to a change being 
> made to the charter.
>
> So the leader of a society can't "suck up anything they want" unless the 
> members of the society empower em to do exactly that.  And if they DO 
> empower em to do that, whose fault is that?  The rule doesn't force them to 
> give em power over them.
>
> Jesus, guy, you're worse than those liability lawyers who say ladder 
> manufacturers are at fault when people get hurt by *gasp* using a ladder.

You're getting tired?  I'm tired here of YOU MISSING MY POINT.  I'm saying 
people might want to get rid of undesireables (like being Dead, or a Toad or 
something) ON PURPOSE, WHICH WOULD BE AN EXPLOIT.  Some things were not 
designed to be transferable, but this allows it.

> >Unassigned /2 The Bigger They Are, The Mucher They Cost
> >Aside from the wording changes that are redundant (but useful), this puts
> >a
> >limit on the content of proposals.  It forces people to use societies 
> just
> >to get some props out, and makes some props impossible.  I don't like it.
> >If we're gonna have a limit, we should cap it off at 5 or so, and base it
> >off something like the number of words in it.  I can change 10 rules with
> >10
> >words.
>
> And we can't have that, can we?  We can't have people actually working 
> together to instigate major change.  Because it's far more beneficial to 
> the game, the ballot and Dave for there to possibly exist 50 different 
> proposals, each changing 10 rules apiece, possibly at cross-purposes to one 
> another.

People can work together to instigate major change.  That's why I post lots 
of ideas to -discuss before making a prop.  That's why I ask for comments 
about them.  Believe/like it or not, we worked together to make my Societies 
prop, which I believe was much better for your input.

As for 50 different props changing 10 rules apiece, that doesn't happen now, 
and people will still be able to make conflicting props after your prop 
passes.

> >Unasssigned /1 More Raw Materials
> >It's my prop, I've said enough about it.  Just pointing out that with it,
> >WBE works again, mining works again, and we have 4 resources to play
> >around
> >with.  Dangit, I want tunneling; the grid just is too confusing and other
> >rules incompatible.
>
> This proposal doesn't affect WBE, since WBE can't possess units.  The 
> recycling centers aren't the issue, because people can recycle now.  But at 
> the moment the units will just be passed to WBE members, since WBE can't 
> possess units.

I quote:
"Each Player and Society has the following Properties, which are Integers:
Wood
Stone
Metal
Oil"

I'm sorry you missed that.  Resources is just a nickname for a group of 
properties.  Here, WBE is allowed to have the 4 resources.

Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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