Kevin's Watch

Alright, if I can't get a consensus by the deadline, I'll submit an alternate gift, something for my own benefit.

Here's the rules. You can only post suggestions for changes to the law or debate the merits of suggestions. No criticism of the Law in general.

When you're sure how you'll vote, go ahead. Only one vote per current player, except for players who are playing in the third age, and they too get one vote (and no, that doesn't mean somebody playing in both ages gets to vote twice).

Restating my sugestion from the other thread: That the DRP level of the return be a maximum rather than an absolute.
Some actions using the same DRP can be less harmful than others, depending on both their intent and how they are executed (your mention earlier of defensive actions affecting other god's parties would apply here); having a blanket return of 3DRP for every 3DRP action, for example, might in some instances necessarily return damage (or benefit) of a greater level than was given. Allowing Xar to take into account the actual damage caused and return an attack of according strength would be more fair, but maintaning the given DRP levels as a cap would ensure there were no excessive returns.


(I'm not entirely sold on this suggestion myself--there are flaws in this just as much as in the original--but I'm putting it out there as one possibility.)

I voted do something else. (and will only vote once! )

My concerns are less about the specifics of the Law (I think that is up to the gifting god; and I am impressed with the thought you put into it) and more about Turn processing - anything that extends Turn processing (I think 3.0 will take longer in general because of its increased complexity) is problematic IMO.

If, on reflection, Xar says it will NOT significantly impact Turn processing, you may count my vote as Do It (since you want to)

I voted to go with it. Xar gives us random events anyway so now some of them will be the result of the law.

Brid voted for the Law of Return. Brid's not in the mood to explain why.

I have voted against the law.

My reasoning is thus:

The law is too biased against actions which are detrimental to others.

It offers a prize for actions helping others and a punishment for actions hindering others.

Every "bad" action gains a double punishment because not only are you being punished but you're missing out on the possible benefits of a "good" action too.

I think in its current form it will unbalance the game and make "evil" deities untenable to play.

I'd suggest either removing the bonuses for "good" actions or removing the penalties for "bad" actions

Hedra Iren wrote:Alright, if I can't get a consensus by the deadline, I'll submit an alternate gift, something for my own benefit.

Here's the rules. You can only post suggestions for changes to the law or debate the merits of suggestions. No criticism of the Law in general.

When you're sure how you'll vote, go ahead. Only one vote per current player, except for players who are playing in the third age, and they too get one vote (and no, that doesn't mean somebody playing in both ages gets to vote twice).

Seriously, people.

I have voted against the law. I think the idea that any action can be described as either good or evil in a game such as this is just plain ridiculous...yet, having a law like this might lead to every action being judged that way. Anyway, even 'good' actions harm others - proliferation of a beautiful forest, for instance, robs the poor of arable land and, thus, it arguable harms them.

I do not want to play a game in which I suffer for indulging in acts such as frequent and large-scale human sacrifice (something which is absolutely essential to the concept of Eztlicoatl). Frankly, if this law is passed, I think the game will get tedious as hell for me to play, and just become plain boring.

After I repeated it, really? Look, this is like the editor's board. It's either a "let's make this change and maybe then run it" or "no, let's not run it." It's *not* a "let's tell Hedra/Syl how much we all dislike it and crap all over it" thread. You're all welcome to make your own thread for that. I really don't care right now.

In fact, forget the whole thing. I'll do something else. I hereby reserve the right to laugh uncontrollably the next time someone complains about something being unfair, balanced towards destruction, or anything along those lines.

For those who liked the idea and/or helped improve it, my thanks. The rest... Do not even think of asking me for advice or assistance in the next game.

Hedra Iren wrote: It's *not* a "let's tell Hedra/Syl how much we all dislike it and crap all over it" thread.

No offense, mate....but it's just a game. I don't think anyone had the intention of 'crapping all over it'.

Yeah man, Your over reacting just a tad.

What montressor was doing was explaining his vote for No.

By giving his own reason for the vote, he may help show people a side of the gift that they haven't thought of before.

Now take a chill pill, and relax. Hell, go have a few beers and swear your head off, get laid whatever. It helps relieve stress. Its a game, dont let the enjoyment of it become second to anything.

All due respect, Hedra asked specifically that no one criticize the rule, just make suggestions on how to change it.

Montressor's response was unnecessarily harsh and I too was shocked when I read it. Under the circumstances, Hedra's post is understandable.

Let's try to remember, boys, that we are all friends here and we should double check what we write before we post it, lest we sound insulting.

And if someone takes offense, the best reply is "I apologize."

Jove wrote: All due respect, Hedra asked specifically that no one criticize the rule, just make suggestions on how to change it.

Well, I'll plead guilty to that - I believed I was treading a fine line, between critique and talking about the kinds of game factors I do and don't like. Not really the crime of the century, but my apologies for breaking that rule.

Jove wrote: Montressor's response was unnecessarily harsh and I too was shocked when I read it. Under the circumstances, Hedra's post is understandable.

I totally disagree here. Nowhere in my post did I insult either Hedra or the law. The strongest thing I said was that: "I think the idea that any action can be described as either good or evil in a game such as this is just plain ridiculous". That is a generic statement. Not a statement on the law itself. Certainly not an insult to Hedra.

Jove wrote: Let's try to remember, boys, that we are all friends here and we should double check what we write before we post it, lest we sound insulting.

And if someone takes offense, the best reply is "I apologize."

Couldn't agree more. Had I thought my words were venomous, I wouldn't have posted them. It was a statement of opinion. It's a free forum, I assume. I have no intention of apologising for an insult I did not give. I think it would be patronising to Hedra for me to do so.

It is rather difficult to suggest changes to the law without at the same time criticising it. If you have no criticisms why would you be suggesting a change?

Can a criticism not be used as a reason for a suggestion of change?

Montressor wrote:

Couldn't agree more. Had I thought my words were venomous, I wouldn't have posted them. It was a statement of opinion. It's a free forum, I assume. I have no intention of apologising for an insult I did not give. I think it would be patronising to Hedra for me to do so.

It is a free forum, of course. But still you are among friends - people who care for you and want to enjoy a very fun game. I would not see an apology as patronising. I would see it as respectful. Even though I also criticized the rule at first, I apologized to Hedra because I meant no offense and I wanted him to take none. His is an opinion and friendship that I value and respect and I would not want to damage it in any way.

However, come game time, each diety to his own......

But forgive me if I sound imperious - that was not my intention. I am just trying to keep the peace and maybe remind everyone that we are all friends here. Things can certainly get hot under the collar now and then and we have all reached that point at some time.


Amplarx wrote:

Can a criticism not be used as a reason for a suggestion of change?

Of course, constructive criticism was welcome. However, telling someone that their idea would make the game tedious and boring is not suggesting a change. It is simply criticizing.

Hedra clearly asked for suggestions for change - not criticisms. He then reiterated the request to no avail.

It is rather difficult to suggest changes to the law without at the same time criticising it.

Sure it is! For example, one could easily say, "Hey, why don't we try to have the law pertain only during moves made during the summer months so that it leaves everyone free to make moves the way they want for the rest of the year."

There is no criticism, just a suggestion.

Jove wrote: Of course, constructive criticism was welcome. However, telling someone that their idea would make the game tedious and boring is not suggesting a change. It is simply criticizing.

Well...the important point to remember is that I said the law could make the game tedious and boring for me. No more a serious criticism of Hedra than if I had of said: "I hate games without explosions".

I don't mean to sound arrogant here, honestly, but I see nowhere where I offered any insult to Hedra.

We're all friends, I agree . . . and maybe it's a difference of opinion - or maybe I'm just too into Nietzsche - but I see all criticism as constructive criticism.

Nietzsche?!? No wonder you're so screwed up!!!
















jk

Thanks, Jove.

Y'know, I just really don't care what your reasons for voting "no" were. If you're not willing to help improve it, then all you're doing is helping convince other people to go against it. Do you really think I'd create a thread for that purpose? Think about it.

It was pretty damn nice of me to open up my gift to outside input (the key word is "gift." not my personal life, Dorian, and if you want things to remain kosher, I'd take that to heart). Yet some of you took that as an opportunity to just bash it, and some of you seem inclined to keep doing so, telling me how I should or should not react in the process.

Sure, the stomach flu isn't helping my mood much, but that just means my BS tolerance is low.

I hope you get better soon, Syl.

What is the Law of Return?