Subject:
|
Re: New Ideas for Jambalaya - anyone interested?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.jambalaya
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:09:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
354 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:58:52 GMT, Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net>
wrote:
> 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?
No, I mean that when you receive the box, you pick one rule from the
"active list", and conduct a trade based on that rule. Then you cross out
that rule, and add a new rule to the end of the list.
So if you picked a rule "take slopes, and replace with tiles to equal twice
the studdage", you could take as many slopes as you wanted, but you'd have
to put in enough tiles to equal twice the square footage of the slopes.
> > 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?
What's the antecedent for "that"? What I wrote, "3. Write rules ... huge
value-adds." would be a guideline for writing rules. A rule for "trade 2x2
rounds 1-for-1 with train windows" would be an example of a rule which
violates the guideline.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
