spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Apologies, Explanations, and Fixes

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:38 PM 2002-01-31 -0600, you wrote:
> First, my apologies to anyone who regards my mass-forfeiture action as 
> malicious, mean, or unsportsmanlike.  I had no intention of breaking the 
> game, and even less of making people want to stop playing.  But the latter 
> has unfortunately begun to occur, and there seems to be a general 
> consensus that I am in the process of destroying the game as well.  I'm sorry.

Scoff!, I must admit, I was initally very distraught by your actions 
(mainly because I didn't want the game to be over).  However, the more I 
look at it, the less distraught I am (partly because I think I've offered a 
remedy, and partly because hey, that's part of the game so suck it up and 
move on, Bean!)

I take back my initial comdemnation.  Though it was sneaky and underhanded, 
your move was well-played, in the eyes of nomic.  Good show.

(Not to mention, it enabled me to show of my Nitpicking prowess in crafting 
that CFJ... thus further proving that I AM THE NITPICKING KING!  Woot!)

> All I wanted to do is draw attention to the issue previously raised by 
> Glotmorf, which was treated rather dismissively  by some and ultimately 
> left still unresolved.  I took up the grand tradition of lawyers hoping to 
> bring an issue before our Supreme Court and crafted a whopper of a test 
> case, designed to draw public interest and judicial attention all at once.

*sigh* You'll note, alas, that I have only made one proposal this nweek, 
and that's because I couldn't resist the lure of Football.  'Twas a pity it 
was eaten.... I'll just submit it again here....

One of the proposals I'm thinking of making would provide an alternative to 
Rule 18... but between me being sick and my hard drive being in it's death 
throws I've been busy..... *another sigh*

> It has clearly backfired, so **I herewith rescind my action which 
> forfeited on behalf of all other active players**.  Which is either legal 
> by the same mechanism that made the action legal in the first place, or 
> unnecessary because forfeiting on behalf of others was illegal to begin 
> with.  This should get us back to one thread, and leave a scenario where 
> my CFJ can be judged and life can proceed as normal.

Well, either way I think it's been solved.... either via your recindment or 
my CFJ + The Voice's Judgement.  No harm, no foul. :)

> But please, let's get some clarity on what is the standard for 
> regulation/non-regulation by the rules, and be consistent in applying it 
> henceforth.  Or if someone can provide a comprehensive explanation showing 
> it has been completely consistent to this point anyway, I'd accept that.

Indeed.  I'll push for this next nweek when I have time (assuming I can 
bring my computer into the "healthy" category by then....)

> But you can't deny it definitely got your attention.

Sorry what was that?  (hee hee) But seriously.  It was well-noticed on your 
part.

Cheers,

Bean