[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Raelus amends p29

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 28, 2005, at 6.35 PM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Raelus has amended p29.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Proposal 29/2: NomiDuels
> A Standard Proposal by Raelus
> Last modified on nweek 86, nday 10
>
> [[rev 1: Fixed minor typos, clarified cases where players fail to 
> complete the duel, added a bragging clause]]
> [[rev 2: Changed challengee penalty for declining: they merely lose 1 
> Amplitude now. Allows challenger to make a new challenge, provided 
> they do noAlso clarified the maximum wager.]]

Provided they do no what? Evil? "thing that I don't like"? "mic related 
activities"? :P

> Add a new rule to Section 3 entitled "NomiDuels":

Many nomic games seem to like naming things by appending "Nomi" to 
them. In a few cases this flows well, such as for Nomoploy or 
Nomilogues, but in general I find that the word becomes harder to read 
and uglier to speak. Why should we engage in NomiDuels when we could 
simply Duel?

> {{
> Once every five nweeks, a player may challenge another player to a 
> NomiDuel. E may wager an amount of Amplitude no more than one-third 
> (rounded up) of the lowest Amplitude among the players. The player 
> receiving the challenge must accept the NomiDuel, or decline it within 
> one nweek. If the player receiving the challenge does not respond, e 
> is considered to have declined the NomiDuel.

Once every five nweeks seems an awfully long time. This is also a 
Telephone: the right to challenge others goes to whoever does it first 
after the five nweeks are up.

The second sentence is confusing. Maybe "E may wager any positive 
amount of Amplitude, provided neither e nor the challenged player has 
less than three times that Amplitude"? Positive Amplitude is also key.

> If the NomiDuel is declined, e can ignore the 5 nweek rule, provided 
> that e does not challenge any players who declined em since the last 
> time e completed a NomiDuel. Furthermore, the challenged player loses 
> 1 Amplitude, if eir Amplitude is positive.

Who's "e" in this case? Grammatically, it seems to refer to the 
NomiDuel itself; logically it must be either the challenger or the 
decliner, but there's no indication of which.

> The Viktor Vine is a game object, which is nontradable. Upon being 
> Viktor in a duel, e may receive one Viktor Vine.

How many are there? If there's only one, then you should say "When a 
player becomes the Viktor, e receives the Viktor Vine". If there are 
possibly many, then you should say "Viktor Vines are Game Objects".

--
Wonko

"So I decided to explore randomness and some of the principles of 
quantum mechanics, through poetry, using the medium of sheep."
 -- Valerie Laws

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