Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Wonko votes

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 30, 2005, at 7.49 PM, flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > Motion 226/0: Accidental Nomic Word Enabling Explicitly Kaput. : 
> > Against
> > I see no reason why words in comments shouldn't be Nomic Words.
>
> As the rules exist now, words in comments become Nomic words,
> usable in prop titles and tiles plays which require Nomic words
> for awarding purposes. My against vote doesn't necessarily preclude
> passage.

I see nothing wrong with that. The text in comments is currently just 
as controlled as the text in the rest of the rules. Although it might 
be worthwhile to empower someone to update comments.

> > Motion 240/0: Consolidating Coinage Creates Canny Cache! : For
> > Although I am FOR this, it also includes a major conceptual flaw.
> > This is not Triller's fault - it's mine for not removing everything
> > adequately. Basically, SP aren't Holdings in any way, shape or form,
> > because you can never have a SP. Instead, it's a unit for measuring
> > the value of a Soul. So you might have 250 SP worth of Souls, but
> > you can't simply have 250 SP. It's just like how you can have 3
> > gallons of water, but you can't just have 3 gallons.
> >
> > This isn't a major problem because the Rules don't provide any way
> > for a player to ever gain SP, so it won't break the game; it's just
> > a confusing inconsistency in the rules.
>
> Perhaps the solution is a proposal to eliminate SPs entirely,
> and any basis on amplitude would necessarily follow.
> Then the cost of talismans that require SP could simply be Souls.
> A talisman that now requires 200SP to forge could simply
> require 2 Souls to be bound to it.
> Off hand I can't recall if any talismans require SPs for activating
> their effects, so that might be problematic.

No talismans do. The prop that removed all mention of SP as objects was 
mine, and I made sure to go through all the Talisman definitions etc. 
and remove all mentions. Right now, the term SP could be removed 
entirely, and we could just say that a given soul has a Value of X, 
instead of X SP. I liked the SP just as shorthand - a Talisman that 
requires 200SP is shorthand for one that requires a set of one or more 
Souls with a total value equal to or exceeding 200SP. Thus, two 100SP 
Souls would suffice, but if you got the Soul of a player with lots of 
Amplitude, you might be able to forge the thing with only the one Soul.

--
Wonko

"What is improbable is extremely probable."
   - Aristotle

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