Re: [s-d] RFC: Devices

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

On Nov 8, 2007 8:17 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2007 7:19 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> While the rules, as they stand, would prohibit that action, the rule could
> be changed to allow that action by a device. Since Blueprints basically
> have
> to be created by proposal, you could roll it up into the same proposal. I
> think it would be better if the rules explicitly give permission when
> needed
> than to allow devices to change things at will.


I was going to say that it would be tedious to change all the rules for
that, but actually I think you're right. It requires the same amount of
effort to include a provision in a blueprint for overriding a certain rule
as to modify that rule to allow for the blueprint's action to disregard it,
since devices would be created via proposal anyway.


> Some rules probably have good reasons for it. Requiring only one supporter
> for an usurp is probably a good idea if the active number of players is
> low.
> You wouldn't want the Chariman and MoM to go AWOL holding this device and
> not being able to muster enough support to wrest control and turn the
> clock
> on.


The 3 person usurp device was just an example, which I also think is a
little high.


> If Blueprint "xyz" is destroyed, it ceases to exist, is no longer a
> Blueprint, and cannot conflict with a future Blueprint that may be called
> "xyz"


Good. That's what sounds most reasonable to me. But as for several of the
other questions in my previous email, I was not only asking because I
wondered about the answer, but also just to indicate that said answer should
be made a bit more explicit in the (future) proposal.


> Using the general term works--I'll put those changes in. Also, I don't
> think
> it would be necessary to say in the same type of currency. The rules of
> the
> currency can decide that out when a new currency is introduced. You may
> want
> to have a currency that is not compatible with mackerel, but you may want
> to
> have one that is compatible or equivalent to mackerel (for example, 1
> trout
> = 1000 mackerel)


You're right about that, except I think it could sometimes be a little
tricky to decide whether two currencies are compatible or not, and could
lead to judgment calls having to be made. To pick up on your trout example,
suppose trout were convertible to mackerel (as points are now) but mackerel
was not convertible to trout (as is the case with points right now). I know
points are not a currency, but a weird analogous situation, with regards to
currency exchange, could potentially develop between two currencies. This
is, after all, a nomic. In this situation, it might be ok for player A to
top a price of 800 mackerel by bidding 1 trout, since one trout can easily
be converted to 1000 mackerel. But whoever tried to top 1 trout with 1100
mackerel could arguably be out of luck. Since trout aren't convertible back,
are they really worth more? Conversion conflicts could come up if we have
floating exchange rates at some point, too. What's the top bid today might
not be tomorrow. Just hypotheticals, but I think that the simplest way would
be to impose a particular currency for the pricing or bidding on any device,
specified by the proposal that created the blueprint. That way, people who
hold reserves of other currencies are welcome to bid (in the particular
currency for that blueprint) as long as they think they can come up with the
cash in the proper currency.


> How about bidding starts on Breakday, ends at the end of Tango, you have
> until the end of Ballotday to come up with the macks?
>

How about Breakday --> Halfday (6) --> Ballotday (9). That way, we can keep
the extended bidding period. And 3 ndays should be enough to come up with
the cash, especially considering that you probably had some sort of plan
worked out by halfday if you were willing to bid a particular amount.


> The Production Count does not decrement, it is still Biddable, so it opens
> up again for bidding on Breakday. Might need to put in someway to prevent
> someone who has no mackerel and no points to keep putting in a bid of a
> zillion to prevent it from ever being bought.


About the prod count not decrementing, I guess a fine reading would show
that this is what happens, but it might be best to spell it out plain and
clear. Good point, I had not thought of that strategy (no mack no points).
Not really sure what would be appropriate so I'll just throw out some
punishments that might deter this from happening. I know some of them are
inappropriate but I'm brainstorming. Reduced voting power for next nweek?
Just can't vote next nweek? Can't hold a ministry? Cannot take any game
actions other than voting for an nweek? Bids will not be taken from player
for the next *x* biddable blueprints? Future cash/points earned will be
deducted as long as it takes to make up the original bid? Automatically
assigned MiniMinister of Duncery?

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