[s-d] Comments on this nweek's proposals

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

p28 (Genechip change): This is being done by the current Tweak to the
rules that hasn't been objected to yet, right?

p29 (Dueling):
- Dueling has only one 'l'. (Sign me up for Grammar Nazi! :)
- This sounds to me like I can challenge each player every nweek, and
  keep on challenging them each time they decline. That sounds like it
  could get annoying to track.
- I don't see how each player rolling N dice, where N is the number of
  amplitude wagered, gives any more of a random result than if it was
  just always a certain die size.
- If players tie again, do they keep on rolling? Why not just make
  ties draws?
- The HowToRollDice document is not a game document. Anyone could just
  change it to be "Players roll dice by asking me, and I decide which
  number I want them to get." You should probably make it a part of
  the game somehow, and prevent arbitrary revisions.
- Rather than "to the business list", I would say "to a Public
  Forum". The rules don't really define lists, just that some forums
  may be deemed public. Requiring a particular list may cause problems
  if do to strange circumstance we need to temporary (or permanently)
  move to another mailing list.

p30 (History & Summary duties): I'm not sure this is really all that
useful. Why not just have the documents and update them? I don't
really see why they need to be a part of the game. And "begginning"
should be "beginning".

p31 (Tiles get-back-in-limit changed to 1 nweek): Hmm. Well, I picked
2 rather arbitrarily. The main point of why I added the restriction
was so that someone couldn't just leave and rejoin a bunch of times
until they liked eir Rack. If you'd prefer one nweek, I really don't
care. Perhaps we should add some kind of tile exchange play.

p32 (Blackjack): Rather than try to define an infinitely-large deck, I
would just define plays as dice rolls. The "If the neither the casino
owner or an employeee of the casino responds" ought to have some sort
of time limit. I don't see a definition of "dealer". If p33 doesn't
pass, the "list of allowed games" doesn't mean anything. Also,
"employeee" has an extra 'e', "vault.If" ought to have a space after
the period, "higher i value" is nonsensical, "e bad bet" probably
ought to be "e had bet", and "infnite" should be "infinite". And
that's without looking very hard.

p33 (Cityscape): This is just way too complicated to throw in there
all at once. I can't possibly process all the rules at once. The
sentence "If a building is transferable it may be sold, exchanged,
demolished, closed or opened." makes it sound as though anyone can do
any of those as game actions at any time, which I'm guessing isn't
what you want, but I don't want to go through and really understand
all the ramifications of everything in there all at once. Maybe try to
add things a bit at a time? The changing of rule 4-4 will undo the
renaming of Gambly if p32 passes. And it's riddled with spelling and
grammatical errors.

p34 (Soul Pennies): Hmm... As Wonko said, this takes a bit of tracking
that I don't think I want to do, and I doubt anyone else really does
either.

p35 (Specialty Proposals): Who determines if a proposal in fact fits
one of these forms (especially Story)? Does the author get the bonus
even if they don't realize that they put it in one of the special
forms?

p36 (Random Object names): Hmm... An interesting idea, but I'm not
sure how well it'll work. As someone said, it's going to raise the
barrier of entry for new players. And I don't know if I like the
all-proposals-get-annulled if they all use the Gibberish word.

p37 (Talisman of Blank-making): Not bad, although I think I might like
seeing new kinds of tiles than merely adding more blanks.

p38 (Rules make Nomic words): Since this incarnation of B Nomic seems
much more editing-the-rules-based-instead-of-just-subgames than before
(which I rather like), it makes sense to accept any words that are in
the rules as being real.

p39 (Titles): Well, rather unoriginal. But not necessarily a bad idea.

p40 (Wages): Be careful with Wages... While it's nice to give an
incentive to be maintaining the game, before the reset I had a
ridiculous number of points from holding ministries... Much more than
from proposals. Also, each Ministry has a Minister, so your last
sentence might be misinterpreted as giving chips for each Ministry
position equal to the number of Ministries they hold, which probably
isn't what you want.

p41 (Grammar Nazi): Don't you mean "high standard *of* grammar"? :)
It looks to me like if I typo version 0 of my prop and then fix it
right away with an amendment, I still get a violation for the first
version. I don't see how "expected to enforce" actually works... Does
the Nazi merely point out the violation so that the Secretary can
track the Suck Points? Can the Nazi fix problems? Also, Spivak
pronouns aren't defined in the current rules (although people have
been using them anyway out of habit).

p42 (All-against passes): ABSTAIN isn't a vote at the moment. And I
don't think this change is a great idea, but it could make things
interesting, so I may vote for it anyway. But I'm not sure yet.

p43 (Tweaks immutable): Well, it's an interesting restriction, but not
that hard to work around. (For instance, consider a prop that made a
Tweak, and then executed the changes in it, and then deleted the Tweak
it just make.) But it might not be a bad plan, just to discourage
additional tinkering.

p44 (A Victory condition): I *really* like this as a victory
condition. It seems a little overly careful, but that's probably not a
bad thing. It could probably call it a "Win", though.

p45 (Runes in Tiles): Yes. Definitely. Playing games with magical
runes is a *wonderful* idea. :)

p46 (Play from connected Zones as well): I wanted to do *something*
with connected zones, and this was the second thing that came to mind.

p47 (4-letter min. acronyms): Yeah, I considered making a one-letter
acronym. This is probably a good idea.

p48 (Filibusters): The "ballot" isn't currently defined. I think I'd
prefer plain-old shelving, although I don't really think that's needed
either.

p49 (Veto power): Again, the "ballot" isn't defined. I think I'd word
this as having the prop fail regardless of the voting or something. It
seems like it'd just postpone things an nweek, which doesn't seem to
me like it'd do much good.

p50 (Political Parties): It's not really a "Generic definition", is
it? I'm not completely clear on how the parties can enforce
things. Can a party require its members to vote certain ways? What
determines "directly influence the Gamestate"?

-- 
Peter C.
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you
mine are still greater."
		-- Albert Einstein

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