Alexis wrote: > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is > platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase > (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule > with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give > the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering > action.
Yes, I think we agree on this. My issue with omd's fix is that it makes it incumbent on the _Treasuror_, rather than the Tailor (as in my proto) or the player (as it is currently), to calculate the correct amount for the glitter reward. > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the > Assessor doing this in the past. Yes, the objection to my behaviour was not about my illicit gains themselves, but rather that, in the course of acquiring them, I inadvertently nullified the effect of someone else's proposal. Twice. (E was very nice about it, but several people took a far dimmer view.) -twg
