Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Wonko votes

[flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> [Original Message]
> From: Daniel Peter Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
 > Date: 8/8/05 10:49:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [s-d] RE: [s-b] [auto] Wonko votes
>
> >> Motion 207/0: "Pious Proctor, Pass the Peas, Please.: : Against
> >> I think I mentioned earlier that I'm voting against any prop if I can't
> > figure out how the title relates to the prop. Also, I don't think
> > gibberish
> > errors should cause the prop to fail; they just negate the prop's
effects.
> >
> > My intent was to simplify the reading of rules, making them more
explicit.
> > Peas was an inference to proposals. It stinks that a player can be
awarded
> > for a failure to act IAW the rules.
> 
> What do you mean by "a failure to act IAW the rules"? It's impossible to
> act without being in accordance with the rules, by definition. The rules
> don't require that every prop defining the Gibberish word also set a new
> one; they just mention that props that don't won't have any effect.
> Submitting such a prop is perfectly legal, and in fact could be a clever
> strategy - you submit the prop now, nobody realizes it has no effect until
> too late, you get the points for the prop passing, and then you don't need
> to come up with a new prop idea because you can propose the first one
> again.
> 

Exactly. And as I'm responsible for a part of the awards,
I prefer to curtail the practice by making it explicit.
Notice the prop doesn't preclude awards for other conditions
that might resolve a proposal as having no effect.

> >> Motion 224/0: Wonko Wacked Worthy Word Work            : Against
> >> I did not "whack" this word work, I just redid it. It's still in the
> > rules right now, because the way a player takes possession of a Soul is
by
> > picking it up, which can only be done to Carryable Household Objects in
> > the
> > same room as that player.
> >>
> > A good point, and I see it now. But it was too convoluted to catch
without
> > guidance.
> > Again, making things more explicit was my intent.
> 
> Being explicit is good, but not at the cost of generality. I want Souls to
> be Carryable Household Objects for all intents and purposes; this prop
> would make them a special case. For example, imagine I have a tool that
> lets me pick up any Carryable object in the Front Hall, regardless of
> where I am. Then I can grab Talismans, sleeping players, etc., but I can't
> grab Souls, because of this prop. The rules describing my tool, therefore,
> need to specifically mention Souls or else I can't use it properly. The
> resulting convoluted descriptions will negate any clarity gained by this
> prop.
> 
Now imagine a Necromancer in possession of the tool you describe.
A player engages me in combat I have no desire to be a part of,
and I end up dying or asleep, and lose my soul. The Necromancer uses
that tool to take my soul before I have a chance to, and then can
usurp my votes for the nweek. Souls are a special case, IMHO.
My prop doesn't say that this rule has special precedence, so a tool
that you propose can overrule it.
As to generality, I dislike having to look in three or four different
sections of the rules to clarify if an action as legal. I'll propose
for explicitness every time. If this chafes, then vote Against.
I realize I'm a mere upstart to these procedings, and if my props
trash your long term strategy then, "Oh, well". Let the voters decide.
Triller



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