On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:54, Jonatan Kilhamn<jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/28, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 00:53, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> >> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15). >> >> The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar. If a >> >> player's Hand Limit would ever be set below 3, it is instead set to 3. >> >> >> >> Owning more cards than your Hand Limit at the start of any week is the >> >> Class 1 crime of Hoarding. >> > >> > No. Are you saying that I have to beware that any particular deal might >> > come, say, on a Friday or Saturday and make me a criminal for getting >> > my earned cards and no time to respond? >> > >> > I think the principle of combining multiple basic hand limits into >> > a single hand limit works fine (with cards that raise it up and down, >> > good card addition) but Hoarding isn't the right enforcement. >> > >> I disagree. If you are worried about extra deals just prior to week's >> end it is a simple matter to play out a few cards in advance so you're >> not flirting with your Hand Limit. However, I am open to another >> option if someone can find a better one. Here's the possible options >> as I see them: >> >> 1. Destroy extras - The current system. If you have too many cards the >> extras are randomly destroyed. This requires a lot of extra work on >> the Dealors part, and also makes it difficult for players to 'store >> up' cards for certain purposes. > > How about "If a player holds more cards than eir current Hand limit, > any player CAN and MAY destroy the excess cards, and the Accountor (or > maybe some other officer) SHOULD do so as soon as possible"? This is > what would ideally happen every time someone Hoards in your proposal, > except that this doesn't require NoVing. Maybe even better would be > "CAN, with notice, destroy", giving the Hoarder some time to notice > and spend the cards emself. (If notice isn't define, throw it in next > to the w/o objection - it's essentially without 0 objections. > I considered this option, however I thought it might be difficult for players to quickly identify how many cards another player held in eir hand since this would require collecting information from four different reports (admittedly, automation makes this easier, but again I don't think we should rely upon automation).
BobTHJ
