Re: [s-d] A different RFJ system (draft)

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:20:28 -0500, Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> a) The Mob should probably be capitalized consistently, though I'm not sure
> if any rules could cause this to be an issue yet.

I said it was a draft. :) Seriously, I wrote this over lunch, whilst  
eating a really yummy steak sandwich.

> b) When there are lots of players, assuming that happens, simple majority
> can be very hard to come by. Simple majority of respondents would be better.

That's what I meant, though that's clearly what I typed. :)

> c) Again, instead of the Administrator doing it, probably better to just say
> that it is done.

Well, *someone* has to do it. :) To me, it seems wiser to specify that  
the Admin does it, because that can later on be changed to the Grand  
Poobah or the Vice-Minister of Loving Beatings, or whomever. If it's  
not stated that someone does it, then who does it?

> d) It's unspecified what happens when a remedy was not given. There seems to
> be no provision for The Mob somehow communally coming up with one. Perhaps
> remedies should be required?

That was intentional, and allows people to ask The Mob for simple  
clarification on the game state, without requiring change.

I probably should put in a stopgap, though, to keep players from  
making 2389123 requests for Mob Justice a day. Unfortunately, the only  
ways to do that, that I can think of right off, are to either impose a  
flat "you can only do this once per nweek" rule, which could be  
problematic if there are a lot of things broken all at once, or impose  
some sort of Revenge Mob rule for people that abuse the system (but  
then the mob has to work out whether that's applicable, a process that  
can just as easily be gamed).

Ideas?

dave

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