Donald Whytock on 17 Jan 2002 21:12:22 -0000


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

spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal 

On 1/17/02 at 4:44 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

><proosal>
><title>The dust you seldom see.</title>
><body>
>Amend rule 129 by replacing the current text with the following
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE-delimited text:
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>2 Nweeks after the Administrator, in a Public Forum, makes any statement
>about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered to
>reflect that statement, unless in the intervening time any player objects
>to
>the statement in a Public Forum, in which case the usual methods for
>determining the current rules and game state shall apply.
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>[[Kinder, gentler, more seductive.]]
></body>
></proosal>
>
>This should mean that player actions don't automatically get made legal
>(for
>example, if I hide a statement saying I'm awarded a win inside a long
>message and no one notices it) unless the Admin acks them in his daily
>recogniser mail. It also ups the time to 2 NWeeks, which gives us more time
>to notice problems. The "usual methods" part is deliberately vague to allow
>us to use CFJs, or just to arrive at a consensus. It only takes one player
>to stop the auto-legalisation, but one player can't just block things,
>because the standard methods will apply, and it should prevent the Admin
>from being able to abuse this, because we'd all need to let him for it to
>work.
>
>Although if (when) we do end up breaking the proosal mechanism, this would
>allow the admin to change things to fix it, by our unanimous consent.
>
>uin.
>
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
>recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which
>is
>privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of
>applicable
>law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
>received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
>printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
>prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
>sender of this message as soon as possible.
>
>The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
>may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited

Er.  Let me get this straight.

It is Nweek X.  The Administrator reads off the scores following the previous voting session.

At the beginning of Nweek X+2, the game state is altered to the game state stated by the Administrator in Nweek X, thereby rendering everyone's score to be that which the Administrator said it was two Nweeks ago, as opposed to whatever it should be as a result of the voting session from Nweek X+1.

And this is desirable why?

						Glotmorf