I think I personally prefer the more direct option, but I don't really
have a good reason why. It just seems more intuitive, I guess. I would
still be fine with either.
On 6/18/2020 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
Minor discussion topic here.
Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird
place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that
causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if
certain conditions are met. These can break in different ways so the
inconsistency may be frustrating. So, if we were to try to regularize
this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct".
More direct: Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as
something like: "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps
involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions
are met)." Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and
conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but
you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money).
Less direct: Something like ribbons: A player who performs certain
actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e
can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win. So e can earn the
win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award
emself the win if e does it within the time limit. However, if e times
out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost.
We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable). No preference
myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in
one direction or the other?
-G.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)