On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 17:20 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
This leads to another question: Does Win by Clout really need to be
repealed?
I'd say so. The odds of it being triggered are practically nil except in
the event of a scam (actually, that's basically the case right now too).
It was good
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
[Changes:
1. Made cost of list movement equal to number of votes over which
one jumps. Makes it very expensive to get to the top of the
list unless the Speaker puts yo7u there.
2. The Speaker's position becomes very like the Grand Poobah in
On 08/16/2010 04:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
3. Moved the office-tracking to the granulator (associated with
Leadership, I suppose, and I'm willing to get it started).
I think this belongs to the Herald and, honestly, Herald is currently in
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
AI should be 2.1 because of Create the following Rule, Leader
Bootstrap, power-2.1:, shouldn’t it?
I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel
system should work differently. 1/3 of all active Players could be
On 08/16/2010 05:06 PM, Keba wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
AI should be 2.1 because of Create the following Rule, Leader
Bootstrap, power-2.1:, shouldn’t it?
I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel
system should work
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
waitwhat? This does nicely solve the rapid Court manipulation problem, I
think. I would give you a prop for this idea, but I'd end up taking it
from you for suggesting the current system, so it's a wash.
Hey now hooold on there...the last system but one
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
[When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at
7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering]
7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to
get
the Speakership when the dust settles.
Does that
On 08/16/2010 05:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
waitwhat? This does nicely solve the rapid Court manipulation problem, I
think. I would give you a prop for this idea, but I'd end up taking it
from you for suggesting the current system, so it's a wash.
Hey
On 08/16/2010 05:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
[When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at
7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering]
7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to get
the
coppro wrote:
Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways.
What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes
on some chamber other than your own?
On 08/16/2010 11:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways.
What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes
on some chamber other than your own?
I'm a fan. I suppose we could leave it in with this proposal - though it
would mean
11 matches
Mail list logo
