Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In anticipation of comments like, "Gee, thanks for telling me this when I could still modify my proposal," I apologize now.  Getting 15 email messages at a time, and trying to follow everything that's going on, I sometimes leave off reading certain proposals until the ballot is formed...

>Proposal 290/0: I've Got The Style It Takes (Scoff!)
Yes

>Proposal 291/0: Standard Optional Delimiters (Rob)
No. Biggest reason is that I can't see the characters Rob is offering as delimiters; second biggest is that if Standard Delimiters are totally optional, why are they a rule?  Why not a guideline off the main webpage? Since all they do is say it's permitted to use them, and since it's already been ruled that it's not mandatory to use them, doesn't this amount to creating regulation to unregulate something?

>Proposal 292/2: An Offer You Can't Refuse (Glotmorf)
Yes

>Proposal 302/0: Fixing It Would Be Too Easy (Glotmorf)
Yes

>Proposal 303/1: Watch for Falling Rocks (Glotmorf)
Yes

>Proposal 306/1: Wait, can I take that back? (The Voice)
No.  Bandwidth rationing provides only so many slots for proposals, so if something is totally unviable it only makes sense to reuse the slot.  This rule penalizes someone for a proposal before it's even voted down.

>Proposal 307/1: More Bandwidth Gremlin Revisions (The Voice)
Yes

>Proposal 308/0: Rule by Consent (Dan)
No.  Think about it...if someone performs what's ruled to be an illegal act, e obviously doesn't consent to be governed by the rules, right?  Instant player elimination via CFJ.

>Proposal 309/0: Judges make typos too! (Dan)
No.  Leaving "official document" undefined places it in the same category as "game state" and "common sense".

>Proposal 310/1: Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (Wonko)
Yes

>Proposal 311/2: Fixing the PEG (Wonko)
Yes

>Proposal 312/2: I'm Higher on the Food Chain! (Wonko)
No.  Not comfortable with a secondary passive precedence system.

>Proposal 313/3: The Yeti (Wonko)
Yes

>Proposal 314/3: Definitions&Pinball (Wonko)
Yes

>Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
Yes

>Proposal 317/0: Cheaters WILL be punished! (Dan)
Yes

>Proposal 319/0: Why? Because I'm a cave man. (Uncle Psychosis)
No.  I'm still not clear why an administrative action shouldn't be effective immediately.

>Proposal 320/1: The only card I need. (Uncle Psychosis)
No.  It's the only victory condition we have right now.

>Proposal 323/0: i said i've got a big stick (Congenital Optimist)
Yes

>Proposal 326/0: The Rat Race (Rob)
No.  Nothing in the rule prevents points from going negative, which means one can theoretically buy an infinite number of GHBs, if one doesn't mind eir points heading toward negative infinity.

>Proposal 327/0: Shields (The Voice)
Yes

>Proposal 328/0: Buttplates (The Voice)
Yes

>Proposal 329/0: Think the CFJ's through, people! (The Voice)
No.  Sometimes rescinding a CFJ is the Honorable Thing and Best for All Concerned.  It should not hurt to do the Honorable Thing.

>Proposal 330/2: The Intercontinental Ballistic Gremlin (Glotmorf)
Yes

>Proposal 331/0: In the Valley of the Drones the One-Eyed Man is Queen (Glotmorf)
Yes

>Proposal 332/1: Are you ready for some football! (Bean)
Yes.  Good effort, guy.

>Proposal 333/0: Sexy Sirens on the Rocks (Scoff!)
Yes.  Look for my upcoming recipe for Siren Pate.

>Proposal 334/0: Justice Administered Piecemeal, Part 2 (Scoff!)
No.  Right now the rule itself is dependent on another rule.  In theory, the other rule could get rescinded; at the moment r128 allows for that possibility.

>Proposal 335/1: Bandwidth Limitation Of A Different Stripe (Scoff!)
No.  No official definition of feet.  After all, if a Player can have an infinite number of Broken Limbs, someone could conceivably assign physiology to proposals. ("You score a critical hit to Bean's proposal's head!")

>Proposal 336/0: Dependent Proposals (Scoff!)
Yes

>Proposal 337/0: nDaysed and nConfused (Scoff!)
Yes