Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 16:51:06
|
I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I would mention here. First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered the options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." Instead, players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in the game log as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an auction does not constitute a pass. Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to do this. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. |
|
From: Phil D. <de...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 17:20:34
|
I was fairly sure that EU gave you a 'start, no bid' option to start an auction without bidding Phil On 25 Jun 2010, at 17:50, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: > I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I would mention here. > > First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered the options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." Instead, players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in the game log as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an auction does not constitute a pass. > > Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to do this. > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 17:23:18
|
It does give that to the person who selects the minor. It does not offer "no bid" to the following players, who should be offered the same option. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote: > I was fairly sure that EU gave you a 'start, no bid' option to start an > auction without bidding > > Phil > > On 25 Jun 2010, at 17:50, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: > > > I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I would > mention here. > > > > First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered the > options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." Instead, > players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in the game log > as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an auction does not > constitute a pass. > > > > Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes > should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to do > this. > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 17:35:16
|
p.s. technically, if you select "no bid" you are not starting an auction. Only if a player places a bid of 100 or more is there an auction. If no player starts an auction, the minor is offered for purchase to each player in turn and there is no auction. So the sequence should be (assuming 3 player game) Player 1 selects minor Player 1 place bid 100 or greater to start auction, then each player in turn bid or pass until all but one pass; exit -- OR -- Player 1 decline to place bid; then Player 2 place bid 100 or greater to start auction, then each player in turn bid or pass until all but one pass; exit -- OR -- Player 2 decline to place bid; then Player 3 place bid 100 or greater to start auction, then each player in turn bid or pass until all but one pass; exit -- OR -- Player 3 decline to place bid; then No auction Player 1 offered purchase at 90 or decline Player 2 offered purchase at 90 or decline Player 3 offered purchase at 90 or decline Player 1 offered purchase at 80 or decline ... Players only "pass" if an auction is started at 100 or greater, and that should cause them to be removed from consideration for that minor. In all other cases they "decline" and remain in consideration for that minor. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote: > It does give that to the person who selects the minor. It does not offer > "no bid" to the following players, who should be offered the same option. > > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote: > >> I was fairly sure that EU gave you a 'start, no bid' option to start an >> auction without bidding >> >> Phil >> >> On 25 Jun 2010, at 17:50, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> >> > I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I would >> mention here. >> > >> > First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered the >> options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." Instead, >> players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in the game log >> as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an auction does not >> constitute a pass. >> > >> > Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes >> should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to do >> this. >> > >> > -- >> > Chris >> > >> > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate >> > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the >> > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rails-devel mailing list >> > Rai...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate >> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the >> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails-devel mailing list >> Rai...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel >> > > |
|
From: Stefan F. (web.de) <ste...@we...> - 2010-06-25 19:53:39
|
Chris: I already fixed the first bug (players were still able to bid after pass after an auction started for that item) a few days ago. From my understanding the second "bug" is only the label of the button: During the first round (where an auction is still possible) the button with label "pass" should be called "decline to bid". In the later rounds (where buying is possible) the label for the pass button should be changed to "decline to buy", if one wants to mimick the rule phrases here too. It is easy to change that, but I must admit, that I never had any problem. I always assumed that the auction only starts, when the first bid is raised. Thus for me even the button for the auctioneer could be relabelled to "select and pass" and I would still assume that the auctioneer could decide to enter the auction later. Stefan On Friday 25 June 2010 19:23:17 Chris Shaffer wrote: > It does give that to the person who selects the minor. It does not offer > "no bid" to the following players, who should be offered the same option. > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote: > > I was fairly sure that EU gave you a 'start, no bid' option to start an > > auction without bidding > > > > Phil > > > > On 25 Jun 2010, at 17:50, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: > > > I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I would > > > > mention here. > > > > > First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered > > > the > > > > options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." > > Instead, players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in > > the game log as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an > > auction does not constitute a pass. > > > > > Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes > > > > should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to > > do this. > > > > > -- > > > Chris > > > > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >----- > > > > > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rails-devel mailing list > > > Rai...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >----- ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2010-06-25 20:01:06
|
>From my understanding the second "bug" is only the label of the button: During the first round (where an auction is still possible) the button with label "pass" should be called "decline to bid". In the later rounds (where buying is possible) the label for the pass button should be changed to "decline to buy", if one wants to mimick the rule phrases here too. It is easy to change that, but I must admit, that I never had any problem. I always assumed that the auction only starts, when the first bid is raised. Thus for me even the button for the auctioneer could be relabelled to "select and pass" and I would still assume that the auctioneer could decide to enter the auction later. [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. Erik. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 20:18:01
|
Yes, I think this is a good summation. Similarly, the log file should reflect the new text rather than saying that players have passed. You are correct that this is not a show stopper. However, in my experience, when teaching new players 18EU, the distinctions between auction and purchase can be somewhat confusing. Proper use of the terms to match the rulebook helps with their understanding. This is even more important when using Rails as a PBEM client, since the teacher is not there in-person to explain the rules to the new players. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stefan Frey (web.de) <ste...@we...>wrote: > Chris: > I already fixed the first bug (players were still able to bid after pass > after > an auction started for that item) a few days ago. > > >From my understanding the second "bug" is only the label of the button: > During the first round (where an auction is still possible) the button with > label "pass" should be called "decline to bid". > > In the later rounds (where buying is possible) the label for the pass > button > should be changed to "decline to buy", if one wants to mimick the rule > phrases here too. > > It is easy to change that, but I must admit, that I never had any problem. > I always assumed that the auction only starts, when the first bid is > raised. > Thus for me even the button for the auctioneer could be relabelled to > "select > and pass" and I would still assume that the auctioneer could decide to > enter > the auction later. > > Stefan > > > On Friday 25 June 2010 19:23:17 Chris Shaffer wrote: > > It does give that to the person who selects the minor. It does not offer > > "no bid" to the following players, who should be offered the same option. > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote: > > > I was fairly sure that EU gave you a 'start, no bid' option to start an > > > auction without bidding > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > On 25 Jun 2010, at 17:50, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> > wrote: > > > > I've recently submitted two bug reports for 18EU that I thought I > would > > > > > > mention here. > > > > > > > First, when a minor is initially offered, a player should be offered > > > > the > > > > > > options to "bid" (thus starting an auction) or "decline to bid." > > > Instead, players are offered "bid" or "pass." This is also recorded in > > > the game log as a pass. The rules are clear that declining to start an > > > auction does not constitute a pass. > > > > > > > Second, after an auction is started, a player who subsequently passes > > > > > > should not be allowed to re-enter the auction. Rails allows players to > > > do this. > > > > > > > -- > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >----- > > > > > > > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Rails-devel mailing list > > > > Rai...@li... > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >----- ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rails-devel mailing list > > > Rai...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 20:22:05
|
> > [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to > bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is different from "decline to bid." I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in terminology? -- Chris |
|
From: brett l. <bre...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 20:44:35
|
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to >> bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. > > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the > terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is different > from "decline to bid." > Can you elaborate on what the specific difference is and how this difference impacts the play of the game? > I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game > rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in > terminology? > > -- > Chris > ---Brett. |
|
From: Stefan F. (web.de) <ste...@we...> - 2010-06-25 20:47:27
|
Chris: The good reason is that internally all cases are covered by the identical action, called "pass". So not surprising that the button triggering the action is labelled "pass". Similar to buy and sell actions ;-). But I think that adding a field "alternativeLabel" to the Null Action (maybe even to superclass PossibleAction) might come in handy in such situations, where the game labels semantically identical actions differently. Stefan On Friday 25 June 2010 22:21:58 Chris Shaffer wrote: > > [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to > > bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. > > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the > terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is different > from "decline to bid." > > I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game > rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in > terminology? > > -- > Chris |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2010-06-25 20:39:55
|
I consider it an immaterial difference in rules wording, that does not merit complicating the UI. But apparently opinions differ. I won't oppose such a change, but I have better things to spend my time on. Erik. _____ From: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] Sent: Friday 25 June 2010 22:22 To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 18EU minor initial sale round bugs [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is different from "decline to bid." I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in terminology? -- Chris |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 20:51:11
|
I get the feeling we've already spent more time discussing it than it would have taken to implement it. At any rate, if any of the developers other than Erik would care to make the change, it would be appreciated. I note that the UI is already complicated by the implementation of the "select, no bid" option and this would simply be extending that option to the following players. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > I consider it an immaterial difference in rules wording, that does not > merit complicating the UI. But apparently opinions differ. I won't oppose > such a change, but I have better things to spend my time on. > > Erik. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] > *Sent:* Friday 25 June 2010 22:22 > *To:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > *Subject:* Re: [Rails-devel] 18EU minor initial sale round bugs > > [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline to >> bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. >> > > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the > terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is different > from "decline to bid." > > I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game > rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in > terminology? > > -- > Chris > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2010-07-10 17:49:49
|
After some time: The pass option at the bgeinning of the 18EU minor initial sale round is renamed to "decline to bid" for the first action of each player after the minor selection. After that "pass" is active (implying "decline to buy"). I took the opportunity to implement the long-standing feature-request for an autopass in the 18EU start round: Anytime a player has not enough money to bid or buy, he passes automatically (or declines to bid or declines to increase his bid). Exception is the player after the selection of a minor as the first bid is processed by the user interface instead of the backend. Here the player still has to select NoBid. This fix covers all game situations, where a player has only the option to pass. The other occasion I have tested is the 1830 type StartRound. The general StockRound is not effected (it allows both pass and autopass). And it does not effect those cases, where players/companies have to choose "Done" (e.g. after an action in the StockRound or during ORs). In principle this behavior could be generalized to those occasions above, but it might surprise players if their turn is skipped outside of the StartRounds. The 1835 StartRound has its own autopass method implemented, which has a pop-up message supplied. So far I have not added a pop-up message box. It can be easily added, but this works a little bit against the intention of a game speed up. (Here and in some other occasions it would be nice to have a non-blocking information panel). Stefan On Friday 25 June 2010 22:51:02 Chris Shaffer wrote: > I get the feeling we've already spent more time discussing it than it would > have taken to implement it. > > At any rate, if any of the developers other than Erik would care to make > the change, it would be appreciated. I note that the UI is already > complicated by the implementation of the "select, no bid" option and this > would simply be extending that option to the following players. > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > > I consider it an immaterial difference in rules wording, that does not > > merit complicating the UI. But apparently opinions differ. I won't oppose > > such a change, but I have better things to spend my time on. > > > > Erik. > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] > > *Sent:* Friday 25 June 2010 22:22 > > *To:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > *Subject:* Re: [Rails-devel] 18EU minor initial sale round bugs > > > > [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline > > to > > > >> bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. > > > > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the > > terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is > > different from "decline to bid." > > > > I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game > > rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in > > terminology? > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >----- ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Stefan F. (web.de) <ste...@we...> - 2010-06-25 21:20:05
|
I wish you were right about implementation times ;-) But what is more worrying is the long-time impact of such marginally improving changes that still potentially make the system more complicate. I would not do that without a general use case (here I believe that there will be other cases, where the backend can instruct the client that this action type will have a different label for the user). Most likely it will already simplify the case of "select, no bid". At least I can write those e-mails simultan to watch world cup, which is unfortunately not possible for serious coding. Stefan On Friday 25 June 2010 22:51:02 Chris Shaffer wrote: > I get the feeling we've already spent more time discussing it than it would > have taken to implement it. > > At any rate, if any of the developers other than Erik would care to make > the change, it would be appreciated. I note that the UI is already > complicated by the implementation of the "select, no bid" option and this > would simply be extending that option to the following players. > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > > I consider it an immaterial difference in rules wording, that does not > > merit complicating the UI. But apparently opinions differ. I won't oppose > > such a change, but I have better things to spend my time on. > > > > Erik. > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] > > *Sent:* Friday 25 June 2010 22:22 > > *To:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > *Subject:* Re: [Rails-devel] 18EU minor initial sale round bugs > > > > [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline > > to > > > >> bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. > > > > It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the > > terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is > > different from "decline to bid." > > > > I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game > > rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in > > terminology? > > > > -- > > Chris > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >----- ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Phil D. <de...@gm...> - 2010-06-25 22:13:20
|
When we are playing face to face, we still say 'pass' when passing on a declining option and the whole process to is is called an auction. Both mine and Chris' approach is perfectly valid, it's just a semantic issue really. Does the localisation functionality help us here? On 25 Jun 2010, at 22:19, "Stefan Frey (web.de)" <ste...@we...> wrote: > I wish you were right about implementation times ;-) > > But what is more worrying is the long-time impact of such marginally improving > changes that still potentially make the system more complicate. > > I would not do that without a general use case (here I believe that there will > be other cases, where the backend can instruct the client that this action > type will have a different label for the user). > Most likely it will already simplify the case of "select, no bid". > > At least I can write those e-mails simultan to watch world cup, which is > unfortunately not possible for serious coding. > > Stefan > > On Friday 25 June 2010 22:51:02 Chris Shaffer wrote: >> I get the feeling we've already spent more time discussing it than it would >> have taken to implement it. >> >> At any rate, if any of the developers other than Erik would care to make >> the change, it would be appreciated. I note that the UI is already >> complicated by the implementation of the "select, no bid" option and this >> would simply be extending that option to the following players. >> >> -- >> Chris >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: >>> I consider it an immaterial difference in rules wording, that does not >>> merit complicating the UI. But apparently opinions differ. I won't oppose >>> such a change, but I have better things to spend my time on. >>> >>> Erik. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] >>> *Sent:* Friday 25 June 2010 22:22 >>> *To:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game >>> *Subject:* Re: [Rails-devel] 18EU minor initial sale round bugs >>> >>> [EV] Indeed. I don't actually see why "Pass" would not cover "Decline >>> to >>> >>>> bid" as well. I don't see any need to make that distinction. >>> >>> It is problematic to explain rules when the interface does not match the >>> terminology in the rules. "Pass" has a specific meaning that is >>> different from "decline to bid." >>> >>> I'm not sure why there would be resistance to having Rails match the game >>> rules? What good reason could there be for desiring a conflict in >>> terminology? >>> >>> -- >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ----- ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate >>> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the >>> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails-devel mailing list >>> Rai...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X