Re: [spoon-discuss] thoughts on props

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/25/02 at 11:34 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>About the Nomvivor prop: I don't like how absentee votes are done.  Allow
>people to cast votes beforehand, and don't limit it like absentees.

Some method of absentee voting has to be in place, otherwise someone could win Nomvivor just by not being around for nweeks at a time.  Since the method for absentee voting is random, it's fair to all concerned.

Aside from that, casting votes in advance?  Sounds like r18 to me.  As in permitted.

>About the Cleanliness props: such clarifications are up to interpertation,
>and that's what CFI's are for.  And such clarifications by the admin could
>inadvertently cause other problems.  As for the part changing rules based
>on
>CFI's, that's what we are for, and see the previous sentence.  Seems to me
>like Wonko's grabbing for points again, especially since he made 2 props.

If I'm reading the Cleanliness prop right, all it's doing is letting the Admin put a comment in a rule that shows what CFIs regarding it got ruled what, thus indicating the proper scope of the rule.  Annotated law books do the same thing.  It's not a bad idea.

The More Cleanliness prop, on the other hand, changes the actual rule.  I'm kindasorta against that myself.

>About the Criminal Behavior prop: Seems a bit messy, especially since the
>-5
>spots aren't defined.

They're defined by the rule, and the rule, as proposed, overrides the Grid rule.  But the rule is messy because of this, and for other reasons, including the fact that there's no provision for all cells being full.

>About the Wealthy Bastard Enterprizes prop: Sounds like fun.  Make the
>minister post the info too.

Problem with the ministry: Wonko's already the Force minister.  Do we want to give em two ministries?

>About the Pain in the Ass prop:  To open-ended, and Dave has enough to do
>without deciding a bunch of kicks.

Especially since most of us are pains in the ass as a matter of normal gameplay.

>About the Improving Speeders prop:  Another minigame! Yay!

I'd like to see these upgrades be more public domain.  Call it industrial espionage.

>About the Club of Clubs prop: HEAD HURT MORE!  A whole mess of crap that
>can
>be put into a couple of sentences in my uber-prop.

Yes, but your uber-prop still doesn't exist yet.  And since your uber-prop has to contain the entire game, and the entire game will increase a dremload this nweek...

>About the Ground Level prop: No fair stealing my uber-prop ideas!

Sorry.  Came up with it on my own.  Totally separate research department.  No secrets in nature, logic or unreality.

>About the Flat prop: Better define where flats can be created, and I don't
>think we're ready for a 3-D grid yet.  All sorts of other rules should be
>redefined if we do.  I think that, when my uber-prop is done, we make a
>new
>3-D grid, and migrate everything there, and when we are done, remove the
>2-D
>one.

Flats can be created on any surface square, or on the roof of another flat.  That's in the prop.

>About the Anti-Brook prop (repeal rule 409): Why?

I'll even give a reason not to: having brooks around will make mining more exciting.

>About the Capital Resources prop: Nah.  The entire financial system needs
>to
>be completly rebuild, not given another revision.

I agree, simply for the reason that buying raw materials makes it too easy to acquire them.

>About the Revise Space prop: get rid of the 'the only spaces that
>currently
>exist' part.  As soon as something else is made, kaboom.  SoE.  And
>besides,
>what about the Tower of Babel?

The Tower of Babel's sole purpose was to give a reprieve to the carrier of the Cursed Sushi.  The Cursed Sushi was repealed by my prop in nweek 21.  bd's p953 last nweek tried to do away with the Tower of Babel, since it no longer served a purpose.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone voted against p953.

>About the Undo the Stock Market prop: Way too confusing, as the economy
>has
>been too thouroughly changed (stuff bought, etc), and besides, Wonko's
>broke
>anyway.

Yes, but it's not just Wonko.  Several players still can't privatize because people other than Wonko own their stocks too.  I kept trying to do these screwy things to make all stocks go away, because IT'S NOT JUST WONKO!  I am really, really against props that only affect single players, because that's really, really not fair.

>About the Wonko:5 Game:1 prop: I think that all stocks, shares, and BNS
>and
>rules pertaining to such should be utterly and completly destroyed, and a
>new system implemented in it's place afterward.  But that'll at least slow
>things down.

The problem isn't with the existing rule.  The problem is with the old stocks.  But it has been said that getting rid of the old stocks is too confusing.

>About the mining prop: The types of the squares after mining aren't clear
>to
>me.  As for elevation, just say that the height is reduced by 1.  And as
>for
>tunneling, I still don't think we have an organized enough ruleset for a
>3-D
>grid.

Squares don't have height at the moment.  They have depth.  Elevation becomes an issue if (a) flats extend above the high point of the grid surface, and (b) someone proposes a way to make grid surfaces higher.

Which I think I'll do a minute from now...

>About the Default Chutzpah prop: I thought this was already done.

Not exactly.  What the rules say right now is that rules get a chutzpah of 1 on creation if chutzpah isn't specified.  That's not the same as saying rules that don't have a chutzpah marked are assumed to be 1.  One can be inferred from the other, but it seems there are people who are using inferrence for diabolical purposes.

>About the Auditing prop: That fixing an effect, not fixing the cause.

It's not fixing anything.  It's renumbering a subsection and cleaning up the text.

>About the Definitions prop:  My uber-prob, once it's done, will address
>that
>stuff, and some of your definitions conflict with mine.  I don't see how
>this will convince anyone to vote no, but that's my thoughts.

Sorry, guy...Vaporware just isn't a replacement for realware.

>About the Luigi Update prop: I thought I fixed this.  No, wait, it was my
>uber-prop.  Very well, carry on then.

So...it's okay to do some things your uber-prop does, but not other things your uber-prop does?

>About the Wine List Edit prop that a drunk BvS made:  "Wine List, 401.C"???

I had to look this up...Thank you.  Not only does this proposal not explicitly specify a rule, it doesn't even implicitly specify one: there's no Rule 401.

Perhaps e was drunk at the time.

>About the Start Over Stocks prop: good idea.  Add in 'shares of stock'
>too,
>just in case.

Well, if shares are a subset of stocks, then destroying stocks should take out shares.  But hey, let's be explicit.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss