spoon-business: Scoff! votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

YES > Proposal 199/0:Me failed English? That's Unpossible! (Wonko)
NO > Proposal 200/0:They're everywhere! (Wonko)
NO > Proposal 201/0:They're Everywhere! Part 2 (Wonko)

I don't like the ambiguity of Plague of Gremlins voting, and these
proposals appear to be creating something without creating a use for it
yet.  I also don't like that they have (completely undefined) Bank
Accounts.  However, I would like to see the Gremlins return along with a
proposal that demonstrates their Usefulness.

NO > Proposal 202/0:Neener (Glotmorf)
YES > Proposal 203/0:Don't mess up vote counting! (Joerg)
YES > Proposal 220/0:Now You See Me, Now You Don't (Fenrir)
NO > Proposal 221/2:Justice Never Sleeps (Glotmorf)

Admirable intent, but makes it too easy to submit bogus CFJs as a
delaying tactic.

YES > Proposal 222/0:Limitation of Veto, Explicit Clarification of
    >                Administrative Powers (Scoff!)
YES > Proposal 223/0:Sushi (Rob)

Although I rather like the idea of the Sushi curse applying universally
to all official forums (with the possible exception of future CFJ
judgements), this deserves credit just for being a workable proposal
submitted by the Sushi.  :)  Plus, as it's an amendment by the original
creator to clarify his original intent, I can't say no to that.

YES > Proposal 225/1:Displaying non-zero-based nweeks (Joerg)

I'm for 1-based ndays and nweeks, if only because that's how the game
started, and I like consistency.  This fixes only half of that, but it's
a start.

YES > Proposal 226/0:Rosetta Clause (Glotmorf)
YES > Proposal 228/0:The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style
(Scoff!)
YES > Proposal 229/0:Helter Skelter! (Uncle Psychosis)

I'm opposed to the methods by which this proposal attempts to obtain
votes, and I'm not a fan of its effect, either.  We need two words for
the same thing?  And the misspelled one is superior?

But I'm voting yes anyway, because it will make a good judicial test
case, and isn't especially harmful.  I don't expect it will pass,
anyway.

NO > Proposal 230/0:This one's optimistic. (Uncle Psychosis)
NO > Proposal 231/1:Crucify myself. (Uncle Psychosis)
NO > Proposal 232/3:Titles, and a de facto bandwidth limit (Joerg)

Like Gremlins, I'd maybe vote for this if it comes back accompanied by a
Useful implementation that works.  The Legislative Zealot was too
fiddly.  I don't like the 3 per nweek limit, but I like it better than
the proposed Zealot mechanism.

NO > Proposal 233/1:Public voting. Secret votes. (Joerg)
NO > Proposal 235/1:The return of the Sushi (Antonio)
YES > Proposal 236/4:My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex
    >                Reconstructive Surgery (Scoff!)
YES > Proposal 238/0:Kick in the Ass (Rob)
NO > Proposal 239/0:Hungry Gremlins (Fenrir)

I voted against Gremlins anyway, plus this one fails to specify an
initial Active/Hiding state for the P.E. Gremlin.  And with a 3 per
nweek bandwidth in place, I'm not really in favor of proposal-eating at
present.  With a higher limit, or more players in the game to reduce the
odds of it happening to a given player, maybe.

YES > Proposal 240/1:Don't do that! (Wonko)
NO > Proposal 241/0:Don't do that! II (Wonko)
YES > Proposal 242/0:Don't do that! III (Wonko)
NO > Proposal 243/0:A little time-warping is acceptable (Bean)

I think the meaning of this proposal is already implicit in the rule as
is.  You can't change the past, but you can change in the present things
that were created in the past.

NO > Proposal 244/0:One outta two ain't bad (Bean)

See 232 for comments.

 

--Scoff!