Re: [spoon-discuss] P1631

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>With regard to Dave's comment in this proposal on the A La Carte props last nweek...
>
>Technically, no, those weren't attempts to cheat on bandwidth.  I would see an attempt to cheat on bandwidth to be an attempt to submit more point-yielding proposals in an nweek than would otherwise be allowed.  An A La Carte prop, though, doesn't yield any more points than a regular prop, so from a player perspective e hasn't increased eir chance of point gain.
>
>I think I was the one who came up with A La Carte props.  I certainly voted for it if I didn't.  The reason I wanted them was so that, if someone had a prop with a mess of changes in it, and I wanted one of those changes to happen but not the rest, it wasn't necessary for me to vote down the entire prop including the part I wanted.  That's my perspective.
>
>However, I also introduced bandwidth restrictions way early on because of Dave's perspective: more work for him is more work for him.  An A La Carte prop with eleven items is eleven things he has to count votes for, plus he has to figure up the percentages for passed items vs. failed items.
>
>So.  Given what Dave wants, and what I want, is there some way someone can think of for voting in favor of just part of a prop, without making that much work for Dave?
>
-Yes. Set the bandwidth of a proposal equal to (n+1)/2, where n is the number of parts. So a one-part prop only takes one, but an eleven-parter takes 5.5, which is normally more than anyone has. This doesn't get rid of the problem of a la carte props entirely, but it does reduce the number of things any one player can make Dave deal with each nweek.-

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