Jeremy Cook on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:42:16 -0600 (CST)

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

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

On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:31:05PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 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!
> Thanks!
> > 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
> > implemented.
> Creating the rule places a restriction on forfeiture; whether or not 
> another rule overrides the restriction is immaterial. r14 forbids this.

No, I would say that creating the rule does not place a
restriction on forfeiture, as to have a restriction on something,
there must be some circumstance where you can't do it.

Not that it matters, since r14 does not in fact take precedence
over the rule that says the actions in my proposal happen (r19,
Chutzpah 5).

> >> 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?

Haha. Yeah, I guess you could repeat a nonsubgame action over and
over as well. I can't think of a good way around this: we could
prevent taking the same action twice when drunk, but you could
still make minor variations on it.

I would like to make actions less effective when drunk, however.
Got any good ideas?

> >> 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.

Well, you have to get enough players drunk enough. Ok, I'd
support a change to a random Poll.

spoon-discuss mailing list