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

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/4/05, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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:
> BABBLEBABBLE
> On 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss