Subject: Dun's Proposal

From: "Shrooms00" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:23:09 -0000

OK, here's my idea. I'm new at this, but...

<start proposal>

Replace Rule 10 with:

The Clock ticks once every 48 hours, starting from a GMT time
estabilished by the Doc. A dun is defined as the time between the last
and the next tick of the Clock.

<end proposal>

So a rule that takes effect for three duns would end at the third tick
from now, no matter whether it is 6 days or a year.

-- Zarba

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Jun 2002 13:42:54 -0400

I'll sit on Zarba's and Goateus's proposals until I see whether any
others are submitted and/or whether anyone has comments on these...

-- 
- Doc

---

From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:16:30 -0700 (PDT)

--- Shrooms00 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The Clock ticks once every 48 hours, starting from a
> GMT time estabilished by the Doc. A dun is defined
> as the time between the last and the next tick of
> the Clock.
> 
> <end proposal>
> 
> So a rule that takes effect for three duns would end
> at the third tick from now, no matter whether it is
> 6 days or a year.

Unfortunately, I don't see how paragraph 1 leads
to paragraph 2. How can the third tick occur anything
other than 6 days later? 

Doc can always proclaim a change in the time between 
ticks, of course, but it'd be nice to have it listed
explicitly in the proposal/rule.

This does present an interesting point, though, of
tying the time periods to a specific time on the
clock.
That would bring the time units back in touch with
the real world.

fnord

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

---

From: "Shrooms00" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:30:56 -0000

> to paragraph 2. How can the third tick occur anything

When the rule is changed.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Jun 2002 17:08:39 -0400

> from now, no matter whether it is 6 days or a year.

Zarba is proposing a move toward calendar-based timing rather than
timespan-based timing. Ideally we'd have both, but calendar-based
only is easier than timespan-based only.

Unfortunately the language needs some work. The second sentence still
uses timespan-based language, so that if the number of hours mentioned
in the first sentence e.g. from 48 to 96, then a "dun" becomes 96
hours and a 7-dun period becomes 28 days regardless of whether it was
in the future or past. Then players who were inactive because they
last posted a proposal 20 days ago (more than 7 old duns) become
active? Doesn't seem very sensible.

Also, it makes more sense for the clock period (48 hours or whatever)
to be a Gamestate item, rather than hardcoded in the rules.

Sigh... maybe we should just use days and the hell with tuning the
pace. I dunno.

REJECT. I can quit anytime, really.

-- 
- Doc