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

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

Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.

Statisticians and accountants sometimes use round-to-even-number or
alternate-rounding-.5-up-and-down to prevent rounding errors from
accumulating. Round up is the convention generally done in most math,
yes, but other possibilities exist.

> 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.

I suppose. I guess it wasn't completely clear that the English Words
that you claimed have to be the entire sequence of English words in
the title. But it's probably fine.

> 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.

When a Proposal Passes, the gamestate changes listed within it are
implemented by whoever is responsible for them. The list of changes
are not necessarily an ordered list, but I doubt the world would come
to an end if we treated them that way.

>> 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.

"Simultaneously in order" isn't in the current rules. (And since we
had a rule change that changed it, one could argue that we *should* do
something different new.)

Rule 3-3: "At the end of each nweek, every Open Proposal becomes
Historical.", and "When a Proposal Passes, the gamestate changes
listed within it are implemented by whoever is responsible for them."

They can't be simultaneously in order, or else some amplitude would
have been given out last nweek for proposals after the one
implementing scoring, wouldn't 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.

Perhaps. But the real issue for me was that all Titles form acronyms.

>> 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?

I guess, making a payment says that things are taken from you, so I
guess having it apply to anything called a "payment" is probably fine.

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

Yup.

>> 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?

It depends on the nature of the Hosing, I suppose. Maybe something to
set its precedence couldn't hurt... I don't know.

>> 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.

Yes, I do think it's probably clear enough. It just seemed odd to me
that Rack was still based on Ownership, whereas Bag was a location.

-- 
Peter C.
"Did the table do something wrong?"
		-- Troi, "Birthright, Part 1", Star Trek, The Next Generation

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