Daniel Lepage on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:31:12 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Re: [auto] Zarpint amends p1984

On Jan 20, 2005, at 7.58 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

If no restrictions may be place on when a player may forfeit, then your proposal cannot be implemented (r14 also takes precedence over the rule
asserting that the actions in your proposal happen).

Welcome back, Wonko!


No, creating the rule doesn't violate r14, as the prop's passing
does not prohibit players from forfeiting at any time. If the
rule claimed to take precedence over r14, then it couldn't be

Creating the rule places a restriction on forfeiture; whether or not another rule overrides the restriction is immaterial. r14 forbids this.

Then what good does this do? All I'd have to do is try over and over
again until it worked. This wouldn't affect gameplay at all, it would
just irritate the hell out of everyone.

Well, you can't take any other actions. There are actions besides
moves in subgames.

Maybe I'm misreading the rule, but where does it differentiate between subgame and nonsubgame actions?

That seems like an awful lot of power to give the Chair. Only two
people voted last nweek; even if we assume that I, Zarpint, and Iain
(the other three who have posted in the last few days) vote this nweek,
that still means that two slightly intoxicated people would be enough
for the Chairman to force an "award the Chairman a Win" prop through.

Depending on how the random numbers work out, maybe.

I would consider that a Bad Thing (tm). IMHO, that sort of thing should only be possible through clever scams. Building in an easy way to do it with lucky die rolls defeats the purpose of the scams.

-Amy Carter, (President Jimmy Carter's daughter) when asked by a reporter if she had any message for the children of America

spoon-discuss mailing list