SkArcher on 17 Jan 2004 15:18:43 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] repeal-o-prop

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:05:30 -0500, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 



On Jan 16, 2004, at 11:12 PM, SkArcher wrote:


I propose;

{{
__Nevinyrral's Disk__
[[
since you are all into cards right now, i'm sure at least one person gets that reference 
]]
I agree with the Baron. Nevinyral's disk would be more like Uin's "Repeal all rules" proposal. It's more like Phyrexian Reclamation than anything else. 

</nerd>
I think that may be a card from after I stopped playing. Still, I have 2 Ancestral recalls :) 


repeal the following rules in their entirety;
255 [[257 does exactly the same thing and we don't need 2 rules to keep track of it]] 
295 [[I fail to see the point]]
Some rules will become nonsensical if you do this; for example, 258 (The Pink Cashmere Scarf of Impeccable Style) refers to gender a lot.
Actually, that seems to be the only one. Nonetheless, I will have to vote SHELVE on this proposal unless you take that into account.
fine. I modify my prop __Nevinyrral's Disk__ to include the following text, after all other text; 

{{
modify the text of rule 258 to read;

{{
There exists an object known as The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style. The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style may be referred to as The Pink Scarf for purposes of brevity.
The Pink Scarf may not be transferred from one player to another except as specified in this rule. The Pink Scarf may not be transferred to non-player entities.
A player who is in possession of The Pink Scarf may be referred to as The Style Police.
Unless The Pink Scarf Is Muffling, The Style Police must make all posts to Fora, with the exception of Proposals and Calls For Judgement, in eir best imitation of a lisp.
The Pink Scarf is Muffling when The Style Police declares in a public forum that "The Pink Thcarf Ith Muffling". When The Pink Scarf is Muffling, The Style Police must make all posts to Fora without using the vowels a, e, i, or o. The Pink Scarf is not Muffling when The Style Police declares in a public forum that "Th Pnk Scrf s nt Mufflng".
The Style Police is encouraged to make comments on the style of all proposals in the spirit of eir role as The Style Police.
At the end of each nweek, The Style Police shall choose a new recipient of The Pink Scarf within two ndays. The Pink Scarf should be awarded to the player who, in the opinion of The Style Police, has made the most stylish proposal in the past nweek, regardless of whether that proposal passed or failed. 

The new recipient of The Pink Scarf shall also receive 2d10 Style points.
The Style Police may not award The Pink Scarf to emself. The Style Police may choose not to award The Pink Scarf for a given nweek, but will lose 5 Style points and 2 Score points per nweek The Pink Scarf is retained as a result.
If The Style Police does this in two consecutive nweeks, e loses 10 Style points, and the Pink Scarf is awarded to a player of the Administrator's choice. 
}}
}}
437 [[creates either ambiguous rules, bad poetry or over-long additions to the ruleset]]
Here I disagree. As far as I know, only two rules have any poetic text in them - this rule, where the Song Form and Void Form definitions are partially in their forms, and r893, which really ought to be neatened up some day.
I will remove the reference to this rule from the repeals section and submit it as a seperate prop 

{{
remove the reference to rule 437 from the proposal __Nevinyrral's Disk__
}}


578
I agree that there are bugs in societies, but there are also good things that have come from them, too, such as the Underground Society. All they need are some limitations, and perhaps an easy way to destroy them if they get out of hand.
I think that with the 'subgames are the application of a single rule' rule gone, these can and should be written up as seperate subgames. Societies are a mess. 


1081
Once again you need to consider everything that relates to the rule - 154.B.5. __BAC__ refers to alcoholic beverages, as do r502 (Happy New Nyear!), and r1252 (Parties). 



hmmm, fine, for now I will leave this

{{
remove reference to rule 1081 from my prop __Nevinyrral's Disk__
}}


1139 [[Because nobody ever has]]


Anybody wanna step in and save this ministry?


1252 [[I think we all know this is abused]]


Or... we could remove the abusable philosophies...


is one man one vote such a difficult concept?




1272
It's not used much, but I hope it will be once the Council is set up - Dave can deputize them to do his work, before we finally do away with the position of "administrator" and make them formally do his work.
I'd rather use the floating Duties system, as it won't get as broken as easily 


1639 [[We broke this in record time I think]]


How is it broken?
We figured out how to use unacknowledged alliances to completely own the game Wonko, remember? 




1637


This should have been destroyed long ago.
repeal sub-sections B.1. and B.3. of rule 256 and renumber all sub-sections accordingly
Nobody uses the remaining ones; why not remove them all? We can always put them back in later, if need be.
because they don't do anything that needs tracking or watching. If you want them gone, repeal them yourself, im just attempting to reduce complexity and daves workload here. Besides, you never know when _I_ might want to curse someone. 


alter rule 625 to read as follows

{{
__Quotes__

There exists a Game Document known as the Big Ol' Book of Quotes.
The Quotekeeper is responsible for updating the Big Ol' Book of Quotes in accordance with the rules defining that entity.
Each nweek The Quotekeeper shall be paid two points per quote added to the Big Ol' Book of Quotes. 

}}
Don't destroy MinGrems unless you destroy Gremlins too. Don't destroy MinEcon if you don't destroy BNS too. Don't destroy MinKeys - I still hope that someday Dave will let somebody edit keywords, and things will suddenly be logical.
As I note, MinGrems has nothing to actually do - the effects of the remaining gremlins happen at the instigation of players and aren't needing someone to watch them. 



}}
Now, from what I can see, the admins responsibilities are now only the following 

recognising props


And all other game actions.
the difference between recognition of their happening and posting them to the forums is pretty much automatic - and the the SoL can be modified to deal with that problem anyway 


publishing ballots
counting votes
publishing results
amending typos & other things according to r257
the first 4 of these can be done by duties - i'll write up on how tomorrow.
The first one can't be done by a duty - it requires somebody with access to the database. Besides which, many of these are largely automated already - all we need is a Ministry of Votes to input them into Dave's scripts, and the publishing, counting, and publishing again are all taken care of.
the last can be made a special form of proposal, possibly an unauthored prop. 

I'd planned on making it a Council petition.



*shrugs* I don't like councils, i prefer democracy
Of course, Dave has to do them all anyway, at the moment, 'cause he's the only one who can edit the rules DB. 



yes, we need to get around that fairly soon


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