Gary Gifford wrote on Sat, Mar 22, 2008 11:11 AM UTC:
je ju's idea has merit, but I disagree with the game selection aspect that
states [a first vetoed game] 'will be replaced by any other game chosen by
the person who originally chose the game that got vetoed. The replacement
may not be vetoed by anyone.'
The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad
games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he
can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes
those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing.
Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is
fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players.
Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would
take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a
game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement.
The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing.
Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players. Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement.