Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rethinking

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd be extremely willing to work on that, yes. As for repealing 3-12 and
3-14, I'm not entirely sure we need to until arriving at something better.

Billy Pilgrim


On 10/31/07, Mike McGann <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm not convinced they do. I'm just shocked there wasn't a second
> > objection to the hand grenade; it's not like the options for stopping
> > overly powerful devices aren't there.  A measly 2 objections should be
> > incredibly easy to muster against anything overly powerful...
>
> But on a game that operates on a 12-day cycle, 2 days seems a little
> too short when it comes to timing. I'm still for only making
> blueprints through proposals via the standard 12-day cycle.
>
> > and even with a missed objection deadline 2 players can submit
> impossibly high
> > bids if one of them is willing to take the penalty for failing to
> > purchase the device.
>
> Only for unique devices. Non-unique devices could be much worse. It
> would be too easy to deadlock the game if everyone purchases some kind
> of device that hampers the proposal and voting process.
>
> I'm for the repeal of 3-12 and 3-14 until something else can be worked
> out. Would everyone be willing to cooperatively work on creating
> replacement rules?
>
> - Hose
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss