Re: [s-d] [s-b] Prop: A Simple Fix

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 12, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [[
>  I note the point about numbering being problenatic as is; but I think
>  it's working as is, is only tangential to this proposal, and I don't
>  have any good suggestions.
> ]]

I agree, it is mainly tangential to this. I intentionally left numbering a bit vague to start, mainly because I wasn’t sure what technical aids I’d be using to help track the state of the game, and thought it’d be useful to have some flexibility.

But, that flexibility gives me some enormous power. I’m inclined to renumber this prop to 1-999 or the like, merely because I don’t want to think about what happens if this passes partway through resolving proposals. But that may be even more an abuse of the power I’ve been entrusted with than my numbering my Temporal Prime Directive prop as number 1-0. Would me doing so be desirable by the players here or not?

If it were me, with the current rules, to avoid such oddities of changing how props resolve in the middle of a prop, I’d have it not change the rules until a little later. As it’s not clear if an executing proposal can cause such a “delayed ability” type of thing, I’d write it something like the following:
__A Less Simple Fix__
{{
Create a new Rule in Section 4:
__Proposal Ordering Setup__
{{
At the beginning of nday 2, the text in and including the brackets from Rule 4-6 is removed, and then this Rule is replaced in its entirety with the following:
__Proposal Ordering__
{{
Open Proposals are resolved in reverse numerical order.
}}
}}
}}

That may be overkill, and not the way that anybody else would approach the problem (if there even is a problem), but I somehow thought that others might find the way I thought interesting there.

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