Subject: MN: RE: re-jigged possible new GSD idea...

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:44:10 +0100

>By the way, I'm not sure if there is an actual restriction on length of

>names -- at least I can't find it in the rules if there is. Anyone?

Good grief, it's gone! I'm sure there used to be one in 0.3.1, and
I seem to think it was '4 to 9 characters' though I'm not sure why I
think that.

>Second, while I agree that the 'other' section has limited use, I 
>think it could come in handy, besides which I'm not over keen on the 
>current 'drone stick' solution -- I don't mind the principle but I 
>think it should be kept separate from other types of possessions, 
>and an 'other' section would, in my view, be ideal. I think the 
>more compact rendition of the token table is an

I actually think I've spotted a major Drone Stickkery flaw; the
Stick can actually be stolen in a shunt, being a possession.
Theoretically, Drone emself could steal the Stick off the Drone
Keeper, not that anyone would actually play to do that I hope.
A proposal to fix this will arrive for the coming Week.

Also, Spoon Clamps can (I think) be stolen, although I doubt
anyone's really going to want to place emselves into Spoon.

[table snipped]

One thing I'll say is I don't really find this new version any
more legible than the existing one. Compactness is always
going to sacrifice legibility in some way, but I think this
one is a little *too* compact for it's own good. Indeed, I
find it harder to read than the one we already have which
isn't really the way to go.. -- although, of course, I might
just be bonkers in the nut.

Still, we shall see.

-Graeme.

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:57:58 +0100

>I seem to think it was '4 to 9 characters' though I'm not sure why I

I thought so too, but not to worry.

>Stick can actually be stolen in a shunt, being a possession.

Bloody good point. I knew there was a reason I didn't like it.

>more legible than the existing one.

No? OK, fair enough.

>Compactness is always
>going to sacrifice legibility in some way,

I suppose so.

>Indeed, I
>isn't really the way to go..

I agree with the principal of what you're saying, and if that's the way
you feel, then my attempt is a miserable failure. Ho hum. 

> -- although, of course, I might

No comment.

dave