Mark Walsh on Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:11:39 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Peter votes

On: 1/7/06 6:24:13 PM Peter voted and commented thus:

> Motion 322/0: Guardian: Architect                      : Against
> This is just too powerful, and I'm sorry I didn't see it and comment on
it earlier. But the player we give this guardianship to we're basically
letting do *anything*. And so e could make a talisman for 0 than only e
could get, which had "0: Change any rule". And it'd be quite easy to change
the Expel rule first. So this is really making a de facto administrator of
the game whom we're allowing complete control over everything. I'm not sure
I want that. (It may be okay, and may make the game more fun if used
responsibly. I'm just hesitent to pass this for now.)
I thought this at first, but not for these reasons. Now that I see your
comments this becomes really scary.

> Motion 325/0: Anti-Gibberish                           : Against
> I'm not sure this is a good idea. Non-proposal motions are generally used
for fixing the game when it is broken, and I'm inclined to not make that
harder than it already can be sometimes. Non-proposal motions also tend to
be easier to stop, and they likely would be stopped if they would break the
game somehow.
OK, I see what you're getting at with this (I didn't at first). 

> Motion 331/0: Rolling Restriction Requires Room Revision : For
> I hadn't realized that my prop might break that. Sorry about that. (In
general, xdy means what I defined it as though, and I was a little confused
by your 2d3 wording at first, so this is probably not such a bad idea.) I
just should probably have fixed the ordinances there myself.
Nothing in the past specified a sum total of dice rolls and for me 2d3 was
synonymous with two 1d3s.
I only caught the implications of your prop this morning (it was my room,
after all). It's a handy fix and
I'll look for other places where this mod impacts the dice.

> Motion 332/0: Shuffling Ordered List Defined           : Against
> I'm not really sure we need to define shuffling, and I'm not so sure what
you mean by doing all that dice rolling and then saying that you then sort
the list.
Perhaps I needed more clarity, and since it won't impact anything that
happens next nweek I won't carp.
I intend to mete out superpowers somehow, and shuffling the list seemed to
a good starting point. I had
to give Antonio a random superpower from the list this nweek, and that was
straightforward because
noone else had one. Once multiple players acquire superpowers, the present
rule doesn't really cover
how distribution should happen. To wit: if someone dies in the game
tomorrow, they too could very well
receive a dice roll of 6, and also hence, get Null Field which belongs to
Antonio. Nothing precludes 2 players
from having the same superpower right now.
Now that I think about you comments in detail, I see that sorting would be
moot, because the shuffled list
would already be in the proper order (again a more detailed wording may be
The 11th hour submission of this didn't help the cause, but noone bothered
to respond to my discuss
post about meting out the superpowers. Seems like dying to acquire one is
counter-productive (to my
strategy, at least).

That is all.

spoon-discuss mailing list