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

[Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, despite it's inadequcy for other purposes, the rule about no referring
to specific players would stop that from working.. Also, the voting thing
wouldn't work, since after the first time no players on the Subscriber list
would be able to do that, so the game couldn't either. However, I'm sure
there are plenty of other ways it could be abused, though, which is why I
intend to edit it as soon as i get people's opinions on the matter *hint
hint*

Personman


On 10/17/04 11:35 AM, "Jeremy Cook" <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:45:11AM -0700, Jake Eakle wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It would be so much fun. I can guarantee an SOE quickly if it passes.
> 
> If it passed, I would create the following Triggers:
> 
> {{
> If there are any players in the game, (*) create a copy of this Trigger.
> }}
> 
> {{
> If any proposal authored by Zarpint the Incomplete is on the Ballot, and
> this has not yet triggered 1000 times in the current nweek, (*) vote YES on
> all
> proposals authored by Zarpint the Incomplete.
> }}
> 
> {{
> If any proposal with the text " Give the player known as Zarpint the
> Incomplete 1 point." is on the Ballot, and this has not yet triggered
> 1000 times in the current nweek, (*) vote YES on all such props.
> }}
> 
> {{
> If this has not yet triggered 1000 times in the current nweek, (*)
> propose the following:
> {{ Give the player known as Zarpint the Incomplete 1 point. }}
> }}
> 
> Zarpint
>> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

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