[s-d] Re: A Proposed new Ruleset

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 8.30 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > The thing I like about the periodic schedule, though, is that we can
> > stop the clock and wait for these things. If a prop contains many,
> > many rule changes, then the Clock will stay off for as long as the GM
> > needs to get the rules up-to-date; this is fine because it only
> > happens at most once an nweek. If each prop has its own resolution
> > time, though, then the GM will have a lot of work to do all the time.
>
> This is the main reason that I wanted the props to all be at once,
> especially as I've been the GM as of late. I think it makes things
> easier as a player, too.
>
> Actually, while we're changing how we're scheduling things, how about
> a 7-day week? It'd be nice if I could fit my nomic-playing into my
> regular weekly routines, but having the things-to-do happen on
> different days makes that more difficult sometimes.

The reason we initially used a 10-day week was to precisely to avoid 
having it be a weekly routine, the reason being that some days are just 
bad for some players, and you don't want important things to always 
happen on those days. For example, if the Ballot always came out on 
Wednesday nights, I wouldn't be a very good Chairman, because I 
generally can't do much between Wednesday evening and Thursday 
afternoon, just because of my class and rehearsal schedule.

I wouldn't mind making it a bit shorter, though - maybe two 4-nday 
Checking periods making an 8-nday week?

If we really felt daring, we might even double the proposal cycle - 
each Checking Period, we can vote on the props for the previous 
Checking Period. Then we might also stipulate that rather than 5 
props/nweek, you just can't submit a prop if the number you've 
submitted this Period plus the number you submitted last period is 4 or 
higher. We'd still have an average of five proposals per player per 10 
ndays, but now they'd be spread out a bit more.

This would also be a good compromise between the rolling props and the 
periodic props - props resolve at certain discrete times, but you'd 
still only wait at most four ndays to vote on your prop.

--
Wonko

This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher 
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities.
     -Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

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