Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:49 -0000
>> My only concern with this is the definition of "possible
>> immediate consequence". Taking a particularly contrived example,
>> if Jota has the Magic Leech which steals brownie points from a
>> player when they enter the same room as him, no-one else would
>> be able to enter his room.
> ... unless they can afford to be stolen from. Right, that's how I
> intend it to be.
No, what I meant was that a player without sufficient brownie points would
be forbidden by this rule from entering Jota's location under any
circumstances, which didn't seem to be the intent of the rule.
As you point out, though, a proposal for a Magic Leech would have to
specify how it worked on a player without sufficient brownie points, and a
similar rule would have to be made under my proposal. Therefore I'll vote
aye on this one (If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]), declare
my own (Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus]) dead, and just grumble and
moan if anything like my contrived example ever actually occurs.