Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 04:31  PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 46:
>
> Proposal 1589/1: Setting Stuff on Fire For Fun and Profit (Baron von 
> Skippy)

No. And for Unbridled Hostility towards Anything McGee, I kick the 
Baron in the Ass. Anything found the hole, and didn't even seriously 
exploit it; this is a pure ripoff of Anything's scam. I especially 
disagree with the proposed titles - if anyone deserves to be "Lord of 
the Failure Scam", it's Mr. McGee.

> Proposal 1590/1: Quote Prop by Teucer (Teucer)

No.

> Proposal 1593/0: In Case of Magazine Article, Break Glass (Baron von 
> Skippy)

No. It makes reference to Race, which existeth not, and I don't see why 
newbies should be forced to pick a gender immediately. There's a reason 
we have "undeclared".

> Proposal 1594/0: You'd be surprised (Wonko)

Yes.

> Proposal 1595/1: Quote prop by BvS (Baron von Skippy)

No.

> Proposal 1596/2: Sovereignty (Teucer)

No. Yer clutterin' the database with rules that do nothing. (Even if 
the treaties and laws and whatnot *were* within the scope of the game, 
this *still* wouldn't do it, because the rule makes no sense. )

> Proposal 1597/1: Freedom! (Baron von Skippy)

Abstain.

> Proposal 1598/1: The Checkpointly Recognizer (M-Tek)

Yes.

> Proposal 1599/1: You Can't Even Do That When You're NOT Drunk! (M-Tek)

Yes. Sorry about the mess.

> Proposal 1600/0: What was that again? (Glotmorf)

No.

> Proposal 1601/0: Cleaning Up the Bits and Pieces (Wonko)

Yes.

> Proposal 1603/1: Political Go (Rob)

Shelve. As this subgame depends on the rules defining 'players' and 
'checkpoints', it would not be 'the application of a single rule'; 
therefore, under r1592, it would have no effect.

> Proposal 1604/3: Gutting the Carcass (Anything McGee)

No to all. Not because of the failure clause, mind you, just because I 
don't like any of the changes.

> Proposal 1605/1: T-shirt Fix (Anything McGee)

No. "Coordinate production and design of T-shirts"? Dude, there's a big 
difference between the Game Object "T-shirt" and a real world T-shirt.

> Proposal 1606/1: Deputy Fix (Anything McGee)

Yes.

> Proposal 1607/3: Proposal and Comatose Fixes (Anything McGee)

Yes to 4 and 7; No to the rest.

I'm not sure why you think all these parts shouldn't be controversial; 
I disagree with both of them:
1) - r217 doesn't belong in r15. Delimiters are not just for voting.
3) - your rewording doesn't work, because you can't vote on a proposal 
that passes/fails at all; you can only vote before it happens. Also, 
the current phrasing is vague enough that we can interpret it not to 
mean the overriding your vote a thousand times gets you a win; your 
phrasing rather specifically *does* allow that (assuming the first 
thing I mentioned gets fixed).

> Proposal 1608/4: No Refunds (SkArcher)

Yes.

> Proposal 1609/0: Quote Prop by SkArcher (SkArcher)

No.

> Proposal 1611/2: Players (Baron von Skippy)

No. But if this passes, I'll forfeit you for you.

> Proposal 1612/0: What does not kill me nets me a title (Fatally
> 		 Flawed) (Baron von Skippy)

No. Because even with a Fatal Flaw, you'll still lose points.

> Proposal 1613/1: Scams (Baron von Skippy)

No. The informal way works fine. Better, in fact.

> Proposal 1614/0: Glotmorf's profit prop (Glotmorf)

No. And for the same reasons specified above when I kicked BvS, 
Glotmorf gets a Kick in the Ass.

> Proposal 1615/0: Power Outage (SkArcher)

No. There's no point - anything powerful enough to repeal it at all 
(such as a proposal) would almost certainly be easily able to, say, 
replace the text with the far superior term "proosal" instead.

> Proposal 1617/0: Quote Prop by Glotmorf (Glotmorf)

No. This I'd like to have on a T-Shirt :)

> Proposal 1618/0: Quote Prop by Anything McGee (Anything McGee)

No. Because I disagree with the quote.

> Proposal 1619/0: Subgame Fora (SkArcher)

Shelve. Somebody better define "subgame" before we start putting in all 
this stuff.

> Proposal 1621/0: I Could Already Be A Winner (Teucer)

No. If we're going to award people Wins for trying to get wins and 
failing, then I want another 10 or so for all my past failures.

> Proposal 1622/0: Quote Prop by Wild Card (Wild Card)

Abstain.

> Proposal 1623/0: Exploit it as far as we can go (Wild Card)

No.

> Proposal 1624/0: lets not (SkArcher)

No again.

--
Wonko

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