Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Redefinition

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 09:11 PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> > __The Admin__ {*(Definitions, Admin, ProposingEntity, GremlinFund)*}
> >
> > An External Force may become the Admin if and only if the rules state
> > that it is the Admin.
>
> This sentence confuses me. Maybe it's the wording -- apparently someone
> can only become the admin if e already IS the admin.

The intent was to make it impossible to be the admin unless a rule 
specifically names you as the Admin; not sure what would be a better 
way to word that.

> [[ in the revised Bandwidth rule ]]
>
> > At the beginning of each nweek, the number of Chits held by each 
> > player
> > becomes 10, and the number of Chits held by the Admin becomes 4, 
> > unless
> > another rule specifies otherwise.
>
> Under these rules, apparently the Admin can now make Quote Props, 
> Respect
> Props, and all sorts of other stuff from which e had previously been
> barred. Bug or feature?

Why shouldn't you be allowed to?

> > An Unauthored Proposal is a Proposal whose prop cost, passage bonus,
> > and failure penalty are all 0. Unauthored Props may not be issued
> > simply as Unauthored Props; only as types of props that derive from
> > Unauthored Props.
>
> This just looks weird. I *think* it works, but it looks weird.

I think it works.

> > * Imperial: In a Imperial poll, the Administrator has the power to 
> > Veto
> > the Poll, at any time up to the official posting of the results. If e
> > does so, the Issue only Passes if the number of Yes votes cast exceeds
> > twice the number of No votes (at the time of resolution).
>
> I think I prefer somewhat the present definition of vetoes, which gives
> the Admin a bit more flexibility in stopping serious game-breakages in 
> the
> top Layer of rules.

How does this differ from the old veto system?

> > The third Checking period of each nweek is the Voting Period of that
> > nweek. At the beginning of a Voting Period, a Concealable Imperial 
> > Poll
>
> If you change this from "Concealable Imperial" to "Concealable 
> Despotic"
> I think the whole game will become much more fun. :-)

But then we'd never be able to get away with anything! :)

> > The polls on a Ballot have an additional voting option: Shelve.
>
> I got a bit lost in the twisty maze of rules you were hacking on here 
> --
> are Fatal Flaw votes still accounted for somewhere?
>
> While we're at it, are the special modifications for Unauthored Props 
> (no
> points, etc.) still covered?

That's taken care of by defining Unauthored Props to have zero passage 
bonus. Since we have at this time at least three different types of 
proposals (not counting all the subtypes of Unauthored props), and only 
one of them uses what is currently the "standard" (3d6 points on 
passage, -1d6 on failure), while the others simply contradict and 
override the "standard", it seemed more sensible to just let each prop 
type define its own bonuses.

> > Repeal rule 25 [[r25/1, __The Administrator__]] and rule 26 [[r26/2,
> > __New Players__].
>
> This part still concerns me. A lot. Especially the part about repealing
> r25, which you modify earlier in this same prop.
>
> This part at the very least needs to be addressed or else this will 
> meet
> my Despotic Veto.

Oops. I could've sworn I was creating a new rule, not modifying 25. Fix 
will come soon.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/O d-(++)(?) s+:+ a--->+++ C++>++++>$ UB+>++++ P--@ L+>+++ E>++ 
W++(+++) N+(++) o?>++++ K? w------- O? M++ V- PS@ PE-@ Y-- PGP- t+ 5 X 
R+ tv--@ b+++@ DI++++ D G++ e*>++++ !h r++ y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

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