shadowfirebird on Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:23:55 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Proposal: Win or Win or Win

> > Wins are automatically granted to a player when the rules say that he
> > has "won" or is "granted a win" or is the "winner".  No rule shall
> > limit the number of ways that a win can be created;
> It seems to me that later in this very rule you're trying to limit the
> number of ways that a win can be created.

Can you show me where?  It's not intended.

> > a given winning condition shall be optional for the player.
> Did you just say in the first sentence of that paragraph that it was
> automatic? I'm not quite following this.

Sorry, I didn't define what a winning condition was.  I meant the bit
of the rules that says a player has "won", etc.

> > If at any point it is only possible for one player to win, then that
> > player has won.
> >
> > When a win occurs, winning cannot occur again in the same way in the
> > same game week.  [[giving us time to pass a  game change.]]
> I'm not sure about "same way" here, and "game week" should probably be
> "nweek".

"same way" seems clear enough to me.  If two people win in the same
way I think that that is going to be very easy to spot.   For example,
when I posted "I perform the winning action too." I was obviously
winning in the same way that you did.  If there is any doubt if two
winning conditions are the same I would have thought that that was a
perfect time for an RFJ.

You're right about n-week, though.
spoon-discuss mailing list