Re: I forget the subject line, but, Edwards-style AP-lending.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:52:43 +0100 (BST)

Me, Nic Hughes:
> > ("Well, Bjetis is -39AP, but his
> > opponent didn't bother with a coup de grace, so he's OK for the
> > moment. Let's wait until we turn the contest around, and then lend
> him
> > 40 when we have them to spare.")
> >
>
> ..and run the risk that you will leave it too late. Once the contest
> is over you are in the epilogue and are dealing with the
> consequences. In a situation like this it is almost always better to
> start as early as possible, anything else is gambling that they "hang
> on in there" until you get around to helping them.

If the result of the contest (for the group) is in doubt at the time of the of members goes "down", then you might well deem this "risk" worth it. And in fact in often the risk is going to be damn slight: if there are many participants initially on both sides, but one is eventually whittled down to just a couple, then the other has a substantial degree of control over when the contest _will_ end, in a way that strikes me as making not a whit of narrative sense.

It's this artificial difference between someone "out of the contest", but not suffering consequences yet, and someone after the contest is over _for other people_ that is precisely what I'm pointing out the whackiness of. And no, it's not been "a problem in play" for me either: it had quite honestly never occurred to me to run it that way. (Yes, when someone is knocked out of the contest I would be fudgey about _immediate_ attempts to help him, but delayed-action last minute rescues don't seem to me to hold much in the way of dramatic appeal.)

> -39 is of course an extreme case [...]

So consider a less extreme case. Exactly the same consideration applies.

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail