Subject: MN: Re: Sv: Token quantity discussions

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:18:40 +1000

On Saturday, June 05, 1999 9:05 AM, Dunx [SMTP:dunx@l...]
wrote:
> At 11:41 04/06/99 +1000, you wrote:
> >What do you think of 10 minutes per four stations, or some sliding scale
> >with similar intent (longer moves take more time?)
> 
> I'd rather stick with the simple linear formula, since you can remember
> it more easily.
> 
> Personally, I think that if you're going to penalise complicated moves
> you're better doing so by this method than by making moves covering more
> distance take longer. And such a simple formula as '5 mins per line
change'
> is a doddle to keep track of.

So what you're saying is that a proposal for:
* ten minutes per four stations or part thereof,
* five minutes per line change
would be totally acceptable? I'll do it. Might as well see if I can get a
negative score with all my unlikeable proposals :-)

Have fun,

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

---

From: Dunx <dunx@l...>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:35:58 +0100

>negative score with all my unlikeable proposals :-)

I'm happy enough with the form, but not with the purpose. I still don't
think that a move should take longer because it passes through more stations.

In other words:
- five minutes per line change: yes.
- ten minutes per four stations: no.

--
Dunx
Ceci n'est pas un .sig