Re: [s-b] Lots of actions.

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

First, votes:
I vote Mrs. Nazi for Nazi.
I vote Raelus for Death, on the grounds that it looks like BvS is about 
to become a gridmin, and I remember what happened the last time 
somebody tried to run a Grid *and* other Ministries.

Secondly, a Reply:

On May 15, 2005, at 12.03 AM, eugman@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> For the cfi in which I am the defendant I declare this as my 
> statement/defense ect...
> {{
> Statement: Truth is beauty. Beauty is truth. Since Raelus's analysis 
> lacks beauty is therefore lack truth and my proposal is a legal 
> move.}}

I don't think a CFI was even necessary for this. It was clearly 
illegal, and everyone can see that. Consider it removed from the 
Ballot; the other props will be renumbered at the end of the nweek, 
when I can do that safely (right now it would require a lot of 
monkeying about with people's votes, and I don't want to mess those 
up).

> I also ask for anyone who was planning on voting against cityscape was 
> the only reason because of over abundance of  subgames? Also should I 
> just let it die or try again next week but make it interconnected with 
> the grid  if that passes?

I'm against it because we have enough subgames right now. I'd really 
like to play up the "play with the rules" game, and Tiles is ok 'cause 
it's fun; I'm not enthusiastic about adding any new ones, and only 
voted for two of them because my Party Platform requires it.

> I give Wonko the two Genechips he deserves for being a cool guy.

Thanks :)

> I submit the cfi to get at peter.
> {{
> == Nice try, Peter. ==
>
> Defendant: Peter
>
> Statement:  Peter's proprosal doesn't actually propose anything, is 
> full of nonsense,  makes no reference to the game and plagerized. 
> Therefore p74 is invalid.
>
> Analysis by Plaintiff:
> The rules say that  each Proposal consists of a list of Gamestate 
> Changes, that is, changes to the state and/or existence of some number 
> of Game Objects. P74 contains one line in the interrogative form and 
> the rest are declarative. A proposal needs statments in the imperative 
> form in order to command any changes to the gamestate. Now even though 
> one is allowed to use a declarative to demonstrate the existence of a 
> game object this proposal does not even do that. This proposal does 
> not reference any existing game objects nor does it declare the 
> existence of new ones. Instead is it full of lines about eternal 
> summer and rough winds and other such rubbish.  I therefore find this 
> proposal not meeting its requirements of a proposal and has nothing to 
> do with the game.
> }}

I think Peter may be in the right here - a list can indeed be empty, 
and nothing prevents nonsense or plagiarism.

--
Wonko

The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.
                -- Buckminster Fuller

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