[s-d] Re: Judge Assignment: 15 points for DOOM!

[pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Cooper Jr.)]

Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I wonder if it wouldn't be easier just to have every CFI be a
> Proposal-like object, maybe running on a different time system so we
> wouldn't have to wait all nweek.

I do kind of like that idea... So I would basically make a prop "Peter
gains 15 points" and then just try to argue why it should pass? That
does kinda make more sense. The only issue I could see is that you
might need to either allow retroactive effects (eep) or they'll need
to be worded very very carefully to handle cases like this: Suppose I
played card X, but the Minister of Cards ruled that I played it
incorrectly and thus stayed in my hand. After this, but before my
CFI-prop "The card is no longer in my hand and its effects occur" has
finished its voting, I trade hands with someone. The CFI's gamestate
changes probably don't include taking the card from the other person's
hand away. And what if the other person played it in the meantime?
Having the list of gamestate changes decided upon resolution of the
CFI as we do now could help with these sorts of things...

But if you want to try making it work this way, go for it.

-- 
Peter C.
"Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss of a carrier
can be tolerated."  -- RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
                                  Datagrams on Avian Carriers"

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