Awesome, thanks for the feedback!

On June 21, 2018 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Define who tracks these switches or are they untracked? (being the
> recordkeepor for chess pieces doesn't mean recordkeepor for the switches).
Ah, that's a misconception I hadn't realised I had - that switches are 
necessarily tracked by the same person as their entities. Looking over this 
that's actually the root cause of many of the other problems with this. I'll 
read the rules about switches more carefully and rephrase to accommodate them. 
Really

> More generally, this puts a burden on the Cartographer. And this also
> implies that if the Cartographer isn't a party, there's no recordkeepor?
My intention was that the Cartographor could choose, by becoming a party to the 
contract or not, whether to bother spending time trying to keep track of the 
pieces (actually the switches, see above). Mainly, it was just a way to keep up 
the "we are actually playing on the map" metaphor going. I don't think it would 
be too difficult to keep track of the board even without a recordkeepor - 
correspondence chess players manage it in real life all the time - but if it 
were converted to a tournament, the gamemaster would be the obvious choice for 
recordkeepor.

> > (Parties to this contract are ENCOURAGED to vote for
> > any Proposal that would enable backing documents to define switches
> > possessed by the assets those backing documents define.)
> There are arguments for or against this but I'd cut this and advocate/
> propose it separately.
Oh, I do intend to propose it separately as well - after Aris's "Minimalist 
Contracts" has been passed/rejected, so I know what it is I'm proposing an 
amendment to. I modelled it after the sentence in V.J. Rada's contract 
competition: "If nobody does anything interesting, parties to this Contract and 
non-parties SHOULD vote to repeal Contracts ASAP." It's not a particularly 
important part and I'd happily cut it out if you think it wise.

> > Any party to this contract MAY, by announcement, move a chess piece.
> I think in place of MAY you want "CAN, subject to the restrictions of
> this contract,"
Ah, I hadn't read rule 2152 carefully enough - I hadn't realised MAY and CAN 
were subtly different. Thanks for pointing that out. I believe the clause 
"subject to the restrictions of this contract" is covered by "Where this 
contract contradicts itself, later statements take precedence over earlier 
ones." near the beginning. In my first few drafts I did explicitly specify 
every time a statement overrode another, but that got unwieldy quickly; this 
way, as long as the paragraphs are ordered correctly, it can be parsed almost 
exactly the same way as natural language.

> Turn-based games can sometimes stall out waiting for the other players'
> turn - what happens if you end up with only one person taking black and
> they don't respond? Maybe add a game clock: "if a move isn't made by
> X time, than [either a PASS or the other side can move that color]"
Allowing either side to pass would make the game nearly unwinnable. (Actually, 
that reminds me that I didn't put in any allowance for a draw.) I see two 
possibilities - either allow the other side to move the colour, like you 
suggested, or just forfeit the game, which would be less complicated: "If, 
after the current turn is flipped, no party to this contract moves a chess 
piece in a timely fashion, the White King is destroyed if it is White's turn, 
and the Black King is destroyed if it is Black's turn."

> The way this reads, a player moves the pawn (successfully), but if
> e fails to create a piece, then e breaks the terms of the contract (fails
> the MUST) but the pawn is still stuck in the last rank and can't be
> converted.
Good point. Another way of doing this would be to decouple the promotion from 
the act of moving the pawn - something like "If there is a Pawn at [...], a 
party to this contract CAN and SHOULD, by announcement, destroy the Pawn and 
create a Knight, Bishop, Rook or Queen..." (with a restriction to players of 
the same colour as the pawn). And require that to happen before the other side 
takes their turn. That way there's less scope for a move to fail without anyone 
noticing, which would be bad.

> I'd hard-code the reward a bit more. I'd suggest making this a Free
> Tournament (R2566) although I don't know if having this be Regulations
> rather than a Contract makes anything in here not work (e.g. you can't
> become "party" to a set of regulations I don't think). You could do it
> by reference though. Set up the Contract, then make a Tournament with a
> single regulation: "whomever wins the Contract wins the Tournament".
Yes, I agree this is probably more suited to a tournament. (I'm sure it could 
be slightly rephrased to remove references to "parties", which would make it 
considerably simpler to read anyway.) I don't want to distract from the 
birthday tournament, though, and it clearly needs more work anyway, so perhaps 
it would be better shelved for a month or two. Also, nobody has actually stated 
interest and it would be mildly embarrassing to initiate a tournament that 
attracted no players!
Another, less important, reason to wait is that if Trigon's most recent 
prototype proposal passes, it would encourage groups of land to be 
disconnected, making the map look more like a chessboard.

-twg

Reply via email to