| Daniel Lepage on Wed, 4 May 2005 17:12:54 -0500 (CDT) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] Comments on this nweek's proposals |
On May 3, 2005, at 11.36 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
p29 (Dueling): - 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.
The current phrasing also suggests that if I challenge somebody and get declined, I get to ignore the one nweek limit *even if I then successfully Challenge em again*.
- 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.
Damn, I was totally going to do that.
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".
I agree with Peter. The main reason why we use a Wiki instead of a set of static pages is because it lets us do things like this without needing rules or scripts for it. Also, what will probably happen with the History Duty is that someone will request a summary of B Nomic's history. At that point, the History Duty basically becomes "the first player to post the entire history gets a Genechip", and all subsequent calls of it become meaningless. Except, of course, that we older players will keep calling upon each other for the same things over and over again until we all have lots of Genechips.
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.
It wouldn't really be that bad, since the value of a Soul only changes when it's attached to its owner. Especially if my Energy Ball prop passes, because that will slow down that rate at which they can be gathered and spent.
I do think that a few Talismans should still require Soul Binding instead of SP, esp. things like the Amplifier that can be used indefinitely.
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?
There are a few precedents regarding this, and I think CFIs would probably suffice to make that distinction. If the author doesn't realize it's a prose prop, then it almost certainly isn't.
I do think that the bonus for sequels will require more judgment than it's probably worth.
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.
I couldn't think of any better way to deal with multiple definitions. Any ideas?
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.
If we have the Grammar Nazi, then yes. I don't like the idea of incorporating lots of spelling errors into the rules.
Also, are acronyms, proper names, etc. considered words?
p39 (Titles): Well, rather unoriginal. But not necessarily a bad idea.
I don't know why we need Nobility; we had Titles for a very, very long time and I'm not sure anybody *ever* used that word after it was proposed.
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.
Also, it should be "each Minister receives a number of Genechips equal to the number of Ministries *e* holds".
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).
The violations are too harsh - everyone makes typos now and then, and I don't think we should be penalizing people for every single one. Maybe just for every three errors in the version that gets voted on?
Also, I'd like a way to fix them. In the days of yore, I wouldn't have made a big long posting telling Eugene what misspellings I'd like fixed; I would have fixed them all and then made a much shorter posting listing what I'd changed. The only thing wrong with the old system was the potential for it to alter itself; if that were forbidden it would work fine.
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.
I quite like this one. As I think I already said, I've had enough playing by the rules, and would like now to play *with* the rules.
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.
It'll make complete takeovers more obvious, since they'll have to explicitly remove the sentence. That makes it less likely that one will be slipped in via a long prop.
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.
You could call it a "Win", or it could be called a "Win"? I don't think it can call itself anything :P
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.
This is good, but it's starting to look like Zones will never be zapped. We may need some ways to lock them down or Zap them early.
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.
One way of phrasing it better would be: BABBLEBABBLEOn nday 7, players may declare that they are Filibustering up to one Pending proposal by stating so in a public forum.
If 4 or more players Filibuster the same proposal, then it remains Pending for the rest of that nweek (instead of becoming Open at the beginning of Voting).
BABBLEBABBLE
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.
It would do some good if we have other things that change over time. A one nweek delay might be enough if you just need to hold out until the Rod of Casting Many Yes Votes disintegrates and can't be reforged for an nyear.
I would change "This may be done up to twice." to something else, because that implies that after two Vetoes the Stamp can never be used again. Also, the sentence " If not, the Big Rubber Stamp remains in the posession of the current Dictator." doesn't seem to do anything. If not what?
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"?
They govern their players the same way Societies could: the Party says "Here are our rules, follow them or we throw you out of the Party." and the players either follow them and hopefully gain some benefit for being in the party, or break them and leave the party. I may prop to have players automatically follow the Party Line if they cast no other Votes, but not until I have time to rewrite the proposal-handling scripts to deal with that sort of thing.
Clearly I didn't generalize them enough in the beginning. -- Wonko"This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context" -David Moser, quoted by Douglas Hofstadter in his "Metamagical Themas" column in the January 1981 "Scientific American"
_______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss