Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 62 BALLOT (the real one)

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 62:

> Proposal 1839/0: Sophistry (Teucer)

Yes.  Though some clarification could be used regarding 
whether voting "shelve" is voting against a proposal, since 
it's counted as a "no" vote.

> Proposal 1840/1: Kill the BNS (Zarpint)

Yes.

> Proposal 1841/1: Any Sufficiently Advanced Magic is Indistinguishable
>                  from Technology (M-Tek)

Yes.

> Proposal 1842/1: We love Rob (Zarpint)

Yes.

> Proposal 1843/1: Nomic Market (Teucer)

Yes.

> Proposal 1844/1: Legislative Veto (Sagitta)

Shelve.  While I agree with the idea that a proposal, if it's 
thought to have merit by the playerbase but is killed by the 
Administrator, should get some compensation for being killed, 
I don't think said compensation should be so excessive that 
it'd encourage the creation of proposals that people might 
like that the Adinistrator wouldn't.

> Proposal 1845/0: No Secret Kickbacks (Sagitta)

Shelve.  If yer gonna change the thing, and therefore break up 
its existing cinquain structure, you might as well do a proper 
job of it and rewrite it as complete sentences, rather than 
make it harder to read in a form that doesn't justify it. 
(BTW, since the 'one point' was in a comment, I don't think 
it's considered part of the limerick.)

> Proposal 1846/0: Player Is Created Free, But Everywhere E Is
>                  In Chains (Sagitta)

No.

I must have missed the previous discussion cited in the 
proposal.  It is not true that the last sentence of r1732.E 
disenfranchises the first sentence; the first sentence serves 
as a default case, much like the rule of the same name.  It 
therefore has power to settle disputes if there is no other 
rule that does so.

As for the second change, I'd rather not have the potential 
loophole or ambiguity of modifiability of things in possession 
of a player in posession of another player.  If one is going 
to allow for player possession at all, one must make explicit 
whether possessing a player also means possessing everything 
that player possesses.

> Proposal 1848/0: Modifiable Props, Officially (Zarpint)

Shelve.  I like the sentiment, but please phrase it more in 
terms of the proposal being announced as being on the current 
ballot.  Otherwise, does voting begin with the first vote 
cast?

> Proposal 1849/0: Slow Down (Zarpint)

Shelve.  I take it this is a reference to the webpage not 
being current.  Again, I approve of the sentiment, but I'd 
like a more exact and stuff-defined-elsewhere-relevant term 
than "some public display", or a definition of same.

> Proposal 1850/0: Fiat (Zarpint)

"Must"?  I take it we are no longer attempting to mollycoddle 
the Administrator while at the same time cutting his workload? 
:)

Sadly, though, game mechanics do in fact require this, as I'd 
said earlier.  Thanks for listening.

I vote Yes.

> Proposal 1851/0: The Painted Face of Death (Zarpint)

Shelve.  Interesting idea, but the first para is somewhat 
self-contradictory...If a Death is the act of Dying, then 
having 2 Deaths can be interpreted as being in the act of 
Dying twice.  Sorry to be picky, but...hey, who am I kidding?

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/imt

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