Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Votes

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Aug 98 15:48:38 -0400

>180: Mine.  I did this because I don't think players who have only just
>begun should be able to fail other people's proposals.  Only people who
>have been in the RP should be failing by Trotsky points.

Yes, but I've made a proposal that I think does it more cleanly (proposal
194. After all, using Trotsky points should be a Trotsky action, right?).

>186: The principle or the implementation?  I know I have a bit of an
>obsession with long rules, but I think they make everything harder to
>understand.

Implementation. You never define how to determine which is the longest rule
(number of words? characters? lines? paragraphs? sentences?)

>187: I proposed this because I noticed that it's been about 40 proposals
>since something failed.  I think if we've gotten into a rut like that,
>players should be encouraged to make risky proposals.

I don't like having one player be able to recieve the reward because other
players have made proposals that pass. For instance, if this whole batch
passes, I could make a proposal that states "Lambda wins the game" and, of
course, it would fail, and I'd recieve more loyalty than I started with (at
the cost of a few commodities). I think perhaps players should be rewarded
on their own streaks.

>188: lambda, have I offended you in some way?

No, I just have no idea why you made this proposal, so I voted AGAINST it
just in case. Actually, now that I've read it again, more carefully, I'll
consider voting FOR it. (Also, I noticed that if all of your proposals
passed, you'd surpass me in loyalty, and I don't want that ;)

>193:FOR,reluctantly.   I'm not sure what public humiliation entails, and
we
>do already have confessions.  Also I can't see how it prevents judges from
>all disagreeing.

Public humiliation is in there so that if a player commits a crime, but the
judges don't really want to penalize em, they can specify public
humiliation. Also, it doesn't make it so that the judges can't all
disagree, but rather that the criminal must get one of the punishments if
they do.

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/
Visit the MacroNomic webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/macronomic/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:10:41 -0400

>(number of words? characters? lines? paragraphs? sentences?)
	In lack of anything else, I assume it would be characters, since
characters are a physical measurement, as opposed to a logical one.

>the cost of a few commodities). I think perhaps players should be rewarded
	If it's been one hundred proposals since something failed, I don't
mind.  Particularly since once we cross 100, we get into a game of
Mornington Crescent.    Everyone can gain points by passing a proposal
which will obviously fail, but the longer you hold off, the more points
you'll get...but the more likely it is someone else will do it first.

>passed, you'd surpass me in loyalty, and I don't want that ;)
	The first part doesn't change anything (I know, it's a bunch of
little things, so it's hard to see what it does, but it really only
generalizes the collective marking to a class of markings.  When a proposal
is marked with a questionable marking, the players get to vote on whether
the marking is legitimate)  The Tweakable proposal thing (which most people
seem to like) lets players make tiny proposals without getting paid for
them (and presumably if players think a proposal should have been tweaked,
they'll vote against it.)

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith