RE: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Stone Swapping

["Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> To Donate a stone to another player, a player must choose a stone of
>> eirs that is on the board and another player who already has at least
>> one stone on the board; the chosen stone becomes a stone of the chosen
>> player.

>The player should have to be allied. Otherwise this provides further
>incentives for an alliance (say, yours) to take on an undeclared ally
>(say, SkArcher). That way he can move in key places, yet transfer his
>stones into your alliance if they start to threaten your position. That
>gives all of the benefits of being allied with almost no disadvantage.

I agree with your first sentence. However, you'll note that it costs em a
move, whereas any reasonable alliance would want to maximize the
productivity of its moves. You will also note that bd has offered SkArcher
an alliance; we have no intention of having an undeclared ally any longer
than necessary. Formal alliances allow for greater freedom in where you
place your stones, which is a good thing for any team.

Personally, though, I see PGo's alliances as more of a means to an end. We
want it to be political, which we accomplish by providing a means for people
to work together. In fact, I think I will propose an amendment to encourage
backstabbings, thereby enhancing the political aspect. It will be ready
soon.

 -- Teucer

"Dude, God's quite the player."
 -bancus

ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx
teucer@xxxxxxxxxx


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