Subject: Re: MN: this week's proposals

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:06:16 +0100 (BST)

>I don't like the Toffing action because of the bit about privately agreeing on
>the tokens before the action is performed -- that means you have to let the
>person know you're going to toff them before you do it, which I feel is
>somehow not quite right.

Indeed; particularly if you try to Toff the Player who takes eir Turn
before you - they can just repost their a different GSD. Add to this
the fact that the "waiting for the other person to agree" aspect makes
for a rather hefty delay if we ever Toff between hemispheres, and I
think it gets an AGAINST.

Maybe if the Toffing Player took the lowest possible denominations of
payment it might work, but it still seems arguably overpowerful.

>And I'm not sure about Beaking, whether it would be particularly useful,
>whether it's a good idea to introduce another way to nick other players'
>possessions...

The Blue Token theft seems a bit too harsh, but otherwise it's not
*too* bad. Just something to watch out for if you're Parcel-running.

>And I don't like Proposal 486 because it's so vague as to be verging on the
>meaningless. You might as well make a proposal 'Alter the rules.'

The "Renumbering" Proposal Type does actually state that all Rules
should be renumbered in order. Thankfully it only says that it
"allows the Speaker to", so I'm free to ignore it if I don't feel
up to it. Maybe when I can etch a little script to do all the
legwork for me; until then, it doesn't really seem worth the
candle.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"They say 'plenty more fish', I say 'Amoko Cadiz'."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "Keeping Two Chevrons Apart"