Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: An Indecent Proposal

["Mike McGann" <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/30/07, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There should be some incentive not to make a thousand proposals each
> nweek.

I don't think that having a thousand proposals each nweek has been a
problem--at least from what I've seen in the meager 2 nweeks that I've
played. If that is really a concern, I think a different mechanism or
a hard cap on the number of proposals would be better. No need to
discourage people from submitting proposals.

> It seems to me that this will happen all the time. Minor corrections,
> for example, usually pass unopposed. The goal of Legislative
> Dominance was not to let you win whenever you make a few good
> proposals, but to award a win if you literally took over the
> legislative scene.
>
> Which, admittedly, has been a pretty sad scene of late.

That makes sense. How about putting back in the text from the original
that was left out:

"Three proposals made by the same player, during the same nweek, pass,
have no votes AGAINST, and no more than one of this player's proposals
fail during that nweek, and no proposals made by players other than
that player pass during that nweek."

Once again to not discourage proposals. If you have think two good
proposals, it would not discourage submitting a third that would be
worthless because of the victory condition. The condition as described
above would be true Legislative Dominance

> "Irregardless"?

Do you prefer "insensitive to case or whitespace"?

> Also, I think we should add "Garth Brooks", for historical reasons.

I don't know the historical reasons for this, but I agree.

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