Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:46 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>>>>>
> Why have a separate section? It could be something like:
> {{
> __Springboard__
> Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may  
> make
> three moves instead of one this nweek, gaining two blue frogs in the
> process.
> }}
> <<<<
>
> I'm not sure how I feel about passing a rule that has no effect on the
> ruleset, only on ruletag.  But I can't see an easy way of stopping it
> - or a reason to.

What do you mean by "it has no effect on the ruleset"? It has just as  
much effect as any other rule regarding ruletag would have. It just  
happens that its effects refer to itself.

For example, would you regard it as a "rule that has no effect on the  
ruleset" if it said, "Any player whose score is exactly 85 at the  
beginning of an nweek may make three moves instead of one that nweek"?

The rule up above is exactly the same, except that the condition  
"score is exactly 85" is replaced with "RTL is this rule".

>>>>>
> I disagree with "they have to be able to get out of the game if it
> got too weird for them". I think if you commit to playing a subgame,
> then you're in it until something happens. Maybe you could give
> people the option of backing out by paying points equal to what
> they'd lose if the rule they're on is repealed?
> <<<<
>
> I really do think that each subgame should be optional.  But paying
> points to move to null sounds like a really good idea.

I think players should be allowed to choose whether or not to get  
involved, but once a player has gotten involved e should not be able  
to drop out for free whenever e wants.

-- 
Wonko


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