Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] PlayerPersonman submits p1926

[Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You're very right about that, and zarpint had some good points too. Perhaps
the best would be if Triggers could only be created by proposing them? This
way only triggers that benefit the majority (such as the paying for vines
one, a paying taxes one, etc.) would pass...

And i really should prolly get rid of the whole starred actions thing. I
don't think there is an elegant way i could make that not cause all sorts of
insanity... or even a really cheap dirty way. So lemme know what you all
think and i'll edit it soon.

personman


On 10/17/04 10:38 AM, "Daniel Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 16, 2004, at 6.09 PM, wonko@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> Proposal 1926/0: Conditional Triggers
>> A Standard Proposal by PlayerPersonman
>> Last modified on nweek 71, nday 3
>> 
>> Add a rule:
>> {{
>> _Conditional Triggers_
>> <snip>
>> }}
> 
> This proposal frightens me. This looks too much like a more advanced
> version of Automation scripts, which had less-than-ideal implications
> for the administrator when last we used them - suddenly Dave had to
> remember what everyone had signed up to do and do it for them, rather
> than being reminded when they announced it. Dave really hated
> automation scripts (and societies, actually) because they allowed
> players to take actions without ever actually telling anyone.

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