Re: [s-d] RFC: Devices

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

Hose...

Whether you prefer to do it during or after the refresh, but think it might
be time to dust off the framework?

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 8, 2007 10:59 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> 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