Re: [s-d] [s-b] Amended Proposal "Rule Tag"

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

I'm going to try and limit the number of iterations that I post to
business.  So I am taking note of your suggestions, but I'm not going
to amend just yet... at least until we've talked about what you've
said...


> ## How about changing that to the end of nday8/beginning of nday9, as
> with proposals?

Right.  That was what I intended.  My bad.


> > All rule tag actions may be made by emailing the rule tag moderator
> > with a subject line starting "[rule tag]". This is in addition to the
> > normal method of declaring them on the public forum.
>
> ##This is ambiguous... Should RTAs be made on the public forum AND
> emailed to the moderator? Can RTAs be made on the forum without
> emailing the moderator, or by emailing the moderator with out
> mentioning them on the public forum? I suggest it says one or the
> other, or explicitly either (I dont have strong feelings, I just feel
> it is best to be clear!)

The idea was that you could do either.  I'll clean this up.


> > Each player may only make one rule tag action of each type.
>
> ## Only one RTA of each type ever??? or per nweek ;)

Oops.  Ta.


> > For the purposes of rule tag, a rule that defines a game term is a
> > rule that explains what that specific meaning is. More than one rule
> > can define a single game term.
> >
>
> ## "More than one rule can define a single game term."... err, what?

Sure.  Example: which rule defines the term "game action"?  1-10,
right?  Wait - 1-16 ALSO defines how game actions work.
I mean, if you were being picky, you could probably narrow it down to
one rule.  But this way we avoid so many arguments.


> > As part of the rule tag move action, the player must clearly show eir
> > current RTL, new RTL and the game term that links them.
> > [[The rule tag moderator gets to decide if this is a valid move.]]
>
> ## I would un-comment that last line, and possibly rephrase. I know
> you give the moderator this power under their rule, but redundancy
> isnt necessarily bad.

Fair enough.


> > (i) If the RTO is in possession, it is dropped, and nothing else
> > happens to it this turn.
>
> ## so if player A has an RTO, and player B grabs it, it is dropped?
> (assuming they all have the same RTL)

Right.  No points are spent.


> > (ii) Otherwise if there is only one grab action for the RTO, then the
> > player gains possession.
>
> ## which player? (yes, I know, the one who performed the action...
> best to be clear, though!.)

Noted.


> > (iii) Otherwise, if of all the players who declared a grab action on
> > this RTO, there is a player who declared more points than any other;
> > then that player gains possession and loses the number of points ey
> > declared.
> > [[So if two players make a grab for the same RTO then the one that
> > declared the most points gets the RTO and loses the points; and
> > nothing happens to the other.]]
> >
> ## And what happens if there isnt such a player?

Nothing.  "Free ball".  nobody gets possession, and nobody spends any points.



> > [[So given three players with elements Earth, Air and Fire, on the
> > same RTL: Air gives Fire 15 points; Earth gives Air 15 points.]]
> >
> ## It might be better, rather than saying "gives"  (which suggests
> some voluntary action on a player part, and leads to the ambiguous
> situation where a player has less than 15 points to "give"), to say
> "loses" and "gains".

Noted.


> And what about when there are several players?
> does the elemental thing happen pair-wise?

All relationships are honoured.  For example, if a Fire and Two Air
are on the same RTL, Fire gains 30 points.


> > There will be a post titled "Rule Tag Moderator".  Ey may also be
> > known as "The Bearer of the Wobbly Hat of Justice."
> >
> ## I mat be missing a reference here, but I dont like the "of Justice"
> bit, as, well, it aint "of Justice", its of Rule Tag!

It's just a comedy name - no game meaning... other than to refer to
the fact that he's the arbiter for the subgame.


> > Restrictions: The rule tag moderator may not make rule tag actions by
> > emailing the rule tag moderator.
> >
> ## so we are saying the moderator cant play rule tag? somewhat unfair,
> perhaps. Or perhaps not. Could go either way!

I'm in two minds about this.  But what I was trying to say here was,
ey must post eir rule tag actions to the forum.  Maybe even that is
too lenient. After all at the time of posting he has access to
everyone's actions so far...


> ## I wont, but it might be better to show that your signiture is not
> part of the proposal (you may think this is obvious, but we have had
> attempts in the past to sneekily include a signiture of "I win"
> included as part of a proposal...;)

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