[s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Wonko votes

[flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> Wonko's votes:
>
> Motion 200/3: Stealing wonko's idea? Naughty Eugene!   : Maybe
> Note, however, that Eugene will not gain any Genechips from the "acronym"
nature of this prop, as neither "Wonko's" nor "Eugene" is a valid Nomic
Word.

Duly noted.

> 
> Motion 201/2: Suddenly super seems simple.             : For
> Motion 203/0: Matthew 5:37                             : For
> Motion 205/3: Concurrent Class Creation                : Maybe
> Motion 206/1: A Couple Classy Contraptions             : Maybe
> Motion 207/0: "Pious Proctor, Pass the Peas, Please.: : Against
> I think I mentioned earlier that I'm voting against any prop if I can't
figure out how the title relates to the prop. Also, I don't think gibberish
errors should cause the prop to fail; they just negate the prop's effects. 

My intent was to simplify the reading of rules, making them more explicit.
Peas was an inference to proposals. It stinks that a player can be awarded
for a failure to act IAW the rules.

> 
> Motion 224/0: Wonko Wacked Worthy Word Work            : Against
> I did not "whack" this word work, I just redid it. It's still in the
rules right now, because the way a player takes possession of a Soul is by
picking it up, which can only be done to Carryable Household Objects in the
same room as that player.
> 
A good point, and I see it now. But it was too convoluted to catch without
guidance.
Again, making things more explicit was my intent.

Triller


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