[Spoon-business] I'm baaack...

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I come Off Leave.

No game actions are taken in the rest of this message.

A comment or two on what's happened since I left:

Glotmorf said:
In other words, if someone is gonna stick the same tired old proposal 
in my face for three nweeks, without making it good enough for me to 
actually want to vote for it, I want em to get slapped with the failure 
penalty, so that e's induced to do more with a shelved-prop slot than 
annoy me.

And then said:
Wasn't it Wonko's voting prop that got shelved twice, then passed, 
without a single change made to it?


Somebody else said that the bit in the rules that killed doubly-shelved 
props was accidentally removed by one of my props.

It wasn't an accident at all. It seems to me that if the voters want to 
vote shelve on a proposal that's been shelved a dozen times before, 
then it's their own fault if it gets shelved again. I voted against my 
voting proposal, and then went On Leave, and somehow all of you voted 
first to shelve it, then to shelve it again, and then to pass it.

I don't really understand how that's my fault, or what you wanted me to 
do differently (note that r1440, "Rescinding Props", specifically 
forbids the rescinding of shelved props). I removed the part of the 
rules that killed doubly-shelved props on the grounds that there could 
certainly be cases where a good prop had a critical flaw and got 
shelved, and then had a flaw in the fix and got shelved again. Such 
props should not be destroyed simply because they took three tries to 
perfect.

To summarize my point, I'm saying that it should be the voters' job to 
fail bad props - if you don't want to see my proposal on the ballot 
again next nweek, then stop voting Shelve on it.



Glotmorf said:
> Except it's not defined, and therefore can be declared an
> eclair.  Nowhere is "reasonable" used in the rules, and
> therefore a poster of the roster theoretically doesn't have to
> be reasonable.  If I was responsible for the roster, I could
> theoretically post it on my blog.  Or, even better, my wiki.

That's exactly why we have a Justice System - to decide what words like 
that mean. If you put your roster on your blog, then we can make a Call 
for Inquiry to determine whether or not you've actually fulfilled your 
duties and put it up in a sufficiently public place relative to the 
players. I would also consider it within the jurisdiction of the judge 
to decide the exact meaning of "available public display" in this 
context, and to decide that your wiki isn't sufficiently available to 
qualify.
	Then we'd be legitimately able to call for a vote of No Confidence in 
you as Roster Minister, and you'd risk losing your job. So it's 
definitely in your best interests, if you become Roster Minister, to 
put it somewhere where we all can get to (and know how to get to).

--
Wonko

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