Subject:
|
Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.jambalaya
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:58:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
367 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> My thinking is that the person with the box only has to follow the one rule
> they choose. At that point in the receive-trade-send cycle, they are just
> dealing with the (potential) mess other people have left. So the current
> box-holder shouldn't have to worry about following all the rules.
I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean for any given piece that is removed
from the box, you must only choose one rule that affects what you do?
What about in the scenario Paul brought up later in the thread? How
would that be resolved in your idea?
> It's the rule-writing that needs to be well-thought-out.
Agreed, but any of us participating need to be on the same page as to
what is appropriate.
> You can try to establish rules for rule-writing, but you'd be better off
> with 'guidelines'--any hard-and-fast meta-rule is going to be violated
> sooner or later.
I agree with this and with your guidelines which I have mostly snipped.
> 3. Write rules that allow the trader to add value to the box, without
> requiring huge value-adds.
Yeah, like trading a 2x2 round brick for a train window. So should that
just be a guideline - just as you've written it?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
| My thinking is that the person with the box only has to follow the one rule they choose. At that point in the receive-trade-send cycle, they are just dealing with the (potential) mess other people have left. So the current box-holder shouldn't have (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
