On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:23, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> 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: > > Er... except if I don't have time to react (which around here by precedent > is ~4 days) I can claim to have been UNAWARE that I was over the limit > and escape punishment every time. > I guess I don't see the issue. The events that generate draws (officer salaries, player salaries, judging, winning elections, adopted proposals) are few enough that players can fairly easily track what draws are owed to them and take this into account when determining how many cards to hold. I don't think an UNAWARE defense would hold water.
> My point is that criminality and the criminal courts is a bad model to > overload for "gameplay" penalties that are a simple economic tradeoff. > If you need some kind of other penalty marker system, make it, but don't > drag in the courts every time. > Aren't all criminal actions we define "gameplay" penalties? What is unreasonable about making players responsible for how many cards they hold? or are you referring to players intentionally Hoarding so as to keep their hand full and taking the associated rests as a trade-off? If so then the issue is not in using the criminal system but instead not having a stiff enough penalty. BobTHJ
