Daniel Lepage on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:17:43 -0600 (CST)


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

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


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