Re: [s-d] Duration.

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

What you said is correct and, yes, timing tactics could be used.
Basing it on actual real time by hour would be better but at the
expense of making it harder to do the bookkeeping and making sure
everything is done on time. I'm all about keeping it simple until it
becomes a problem.


- Hose

On Nov 24, 2007 7:51 PM, William P. Berard
<william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I noticed that the rule relative to "after X days"  at the moment,
> reads :  (Rule 2-1, NTime, subsection "Durations")
>
> ----
> A duration to the effect of "X ndays", where X is a number, shall be
> interpreted to mean that the duration ends at the end of the nday after
> X consecutive changes of that value. [[Thus, if it is currently the
> middle of nday 2, something happening "in 2 ndays" will occur at the
> end of nday 4.]]
> A duration to the effect of "X ndelays", where X is a number, shall be
> interpreted to mean that the duration ends at the end of the ndelay
> after X consecutive changes of that value. The resetting of an ndelay
> to 0 from the Clock being turned On does not count as a change for the
> purposes of this paragraph.
> ----
>
> It effectively means that a duration of N days can actually range from
> N days to N+1 days (with the current rule, if action B occurs 2 ndays
> after action A, if action A is done at the very beginning of, for
> example, day 2, then B will occur at the end of day 4, effectively
> almost 3 ndays later. if On the other hand, if A occurs at the very end
> of day 2, the duration will be effectively a bit more than 2 ndays.
>
> I do not want to seem to be nitpicking, but, considering durations, in
> the current state of the rules, seem to be used mainly for objections
> and support.
>
> I was puzzled that X ndays do not correspond to X multiplied by 24
> hours, to give a real, solid value to an X duration, rather that
> something fluctuating. I suspect if one wants to pass something that
> can be objected, it is in one's interest to log their action as late as
> possible on one specific day, giving the other players 48 hours to
> object, whereas someone needing support for a particlar action, would
> try and log it at the very beginning of a day, to manage more time for
> player to catch up with the situation, and possibly get support.
>
> So I was wondering, before I sumbit a proposal about this, if the
> current version of this rule was like this on purpose, both to avoid
> the hassle of implementing an hours-based duration (the clock does not
> show UTC time), and to give room to interesting "timing tactics" ?
>
> Do you guys think it could be interesting to switch to a hours-based
> duration, or is not worth the hassle? I do not think all the players
> are in the same time zones, so it could be more fair to count from day
> N at time T to day N+X at time T, but I can see that being problematic
> since it is hard to time actions precisely in UTC.
>
> That was just a thought, really, let me know what you think...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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