[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Peter votes

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 27, 2005, at 9.18 PM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Peter's votes:
> Proposal 10/1: PUNCHAMIME                               : Against
> I like the idea of playing with the words in the game itself, but I'm 
> not sure what happens if an acronym has two words in it (since 0 and 1 
> are both the nearest integer to 0.5, and differing conventions for 
> "nearest integer" exist). Also, I'm not sure about how to count words 
> that overlap within the acronym. And its second paragraph may apply 
> recursively to itself indefinitely or something.

I can't recall ever seeing "round down" as the default for rounding. 
Everything I've ever seen that said "rounded to the nearest X" rounds 
.5 up; there are game precedents for this as well.

Overlapping words don't count as a single bonus, because the acronym 
must reduce either to "an English Word" or "a string of English Words". 
But if you can break the same letters into English Words four different 
ways, you would be allowed to claim each of them individually.

As for recursion, the event only happens once, after which control 
proceeds to the next statement. The fact that it leaves the code behind 
it changed is immaterial.

> Proposal 19/0: Size matters not                         : For
> I'm not quite sure what happens if both this and p8 pass, as they're 
> both trying to change the same rule...

Simultaneously in order. p8 changes 3-4, and then p19 overwrites it.

> Proposal 21/1: New kind of money.                       : Against
> All titles form acronyms.
> And I don't want to need to check each of these conditions on every 
> proposal to decide whether to give out Genechips.

Huh. Maybe it would make sense to force players to claim their 
Genechips, so that it falls to the author to check the conditions.

> Proposal 23/1: Speak Softly and Carry a Magic Stick     : For
> I love the paying Souls to do things. Amplitude Amplifier seems like a 
> good way to make a scam, and I'm not clear on the difference between 
> "because of objects other than Talismans" and "voluntarily paid to 
> other sources". But I'll still vote for it.

I'm saying that if you're given points, or points are taken from you, 
then the effects are amplified. Talisman effects are exempt because I 
don't want any chance of it stacking on itself and sending your score 
to infinity. Payments are exempt because if you choose to purchase some 
object, you shouldn't have to pay double price for it. Or maybe you 
should?

It's a good thing people can't give Amplitude away, because otherwise 
two people with Amplifiers could get unlimited Amplitude through 
feedback immediately.

> Proposal 26/0: Not Just for Emergencies Anymore         : For
> We may want slightly less than 7 days for Executive Tidiness type 
> changes, although I'm not quite sure how to distinguish those from We 
> Really Need To Fix The Game Now tweaks. And we might want something to 
> ensure that we can still use Tweaks even if things get Really Hosed.

Tweaks are designed to function even when things are Really Hosed, 
which is why they don't rely on any other definitions in the ruleset 
and they run on real time rather than ntime. What else would work?

> Proposal 6/2: A Board for Tiles                        : For
> The last part of the definitions probably ought to say that it gets 
> removed from the Bag when drawn... I'm not sure they do under the 
> current proposal wording.

Hmmm. It could be interpreted either way, and I think the context makes 
it obvious which meaning is intended.

--
Wonko
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from 
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent 
disinclination to do so."
   -- Douglas Adams, _Last Chance To See_

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