Taral wrote:
>How about if you keep them if you use them AGAINST, but not if you use them
>FOR?
Mm, that's more interesting. I suppose one would
have a voting-limit-AGAINST-ordinary-proposals and
a voting-limit-FOR-ordinary-proposals; one can raise the former
permanently, but the latter only for
On 6/20/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
> early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
> make for a good game. If you want to cast your EVs AGAINST a p
On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
make for a good game. If you want to cast your EVs AGAINST a proposal,
then you may well succeed in voting it dow
Roger Hicks wrote:
> A player may expend one VC to increase eir own voting limit on an
> ordinary proposal by one.
This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the
early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not
make for a good game. If you want to
On 6/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A player may expend one VC to increase eir own voting limit on an
ordinary proposal by one.
If the proposal is already in its voting period, then this runs afoul
of Rule 1950. Not sure what the a clean way to fix this would be.
5 matches
Mail list logo
