On Nov 28, 2007 10:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 10:39 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When the CotC assigns a Player as a judge of a judicial case, that > > Player's Quality is reduced by 3, except as described in the next > > paragraph. If this would cause that Player's Quality to be less than > > 0, each active Player's Quality is increased by eir Eagerness. > > "less than or equal to 0". Otherwise, the highest quality could be 0, > which could result in the assignment of a player not interested in > judging. > Good point. Although one of the objectives when coming up with this system was to ensure that there always was a qualified judge for any case. If it were set to less than or equal to 0, then players not interested in judging would only be qualified in the rare case where every other judge somehow had their Quality reduced, which makes sense. > > > f) A Player MAY spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another > > Player's Quality by N. > > > > g) A Player MAY spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own > > Quality by N. > > > > h) A Player MAY spend N VCs of different colors to decrease another > > Player's Quality by N. > > These would make it too easy to hand-pick a judge for a case, IMO. > Easy, but costly (perhaps the costs need to be bumped up a bit). In rare cases it would allow a little gerrymandering of the judge selection process. However, due to the VC cost, and the diminishing Quality from judging, it couldn't be used easily in succession, and even when used it can easily be counteracted by another player.
BobTHJ
