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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 31, 2007, at 12:14 AM, Mike McGann wrote:

> 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.

Well, Dave got pretty mad at me when I made thirty-some proposals in  
nweek 3. But maybe that's not a problem now that we can correct typos  
without making proposals. We used to enforce a five prop/player/nweek  
limit; I suppose it really boils down to how many proposals the  
Ministers are willing to put up with.

>> 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

Sounds good to me.

>> "Irregardless"?
>
> Do you prefer "insensitive to case or whitespace"?

I prefer "regardless".

>> Also, I think we should add "Garth Brooks", for historical reasons.
>
> I don't know the historical reasons for this, but I agree.

We had a player once who disliked Garth Brooks so much that e  
invented Game Objects called Brooks and came up with a way to "Garth"  
them, just so that "Garth Brooks" could be put on the List of  
Generally Abhorred Stuff (LOGAS), which could only contain actions.

-- 
Wonko

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