On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 15:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Luis Ressel wrote: > > > I award myself a Gray Ribbon. > > > > You know, renaming this game "Tailor is kingmaker, don't bother" really > > takes the interest out of this for me. > > I'm often surprised by what does and doesn't annoy you. > > Ribbons are a pretty long-term goal. The Tailor may well change hands > more often than that, and I'd also expect a Tailor to award a Gray > Ribbon to someone who doesn't yet have one every month (and if e doesn't > do so, I'd be looking to vote em out of the office). As a result, I > doubt that the Gray Ribbon will be the last one that anyone will be > missing.
I was putting the annoyance on a little bit I think, to see if discussion happened. :) A more constructive comment is: I think the balance is off here a bit. The timescale between "bad Tailor" (a Tailor who doesn't hand out awards) and election correction seems a bit off to me, and as it is there's no incentive at all for the Tailor to be "good". Also, no matter how long it takes, it's kind of boring as an endgame. Eventually, no matter how well a person does, it comes down to "will the Tailor bless my win, or not?" I agree there may be more to this than I'm seeing (maybe it should just be translated as "hold the office of Tailor at least once") and there's plenty of time to adjust it if it's an obstacle. Here's a simple idea correction: the Tailor MUST award one Ribbon a month, not necessarily grey (that sounds like the right time scale). That means e can get out of awarding a grey ribbon by spotting an award someone has earned but not claimed (that's a good public service to encourage anyway), but if e doesn't find one, e must award a grey or face a deputization threat. -G.
