Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 19 BALLOT

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 7/7/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>>> Proposal 810/0: Gnomes for sale! (Wonko)
>>> 
>>> No.  There should still be a way to purchase a random gnome.
>>> 
>> 
>> Um... There is. It's in the rule where it was originally. I'm creating a
>> new
>> rule, not replacing the old one.
> 
> Ah.  My mistake in that aspect.  But then, why is the gnome type that's "on
> sale" more expensive than when not on sale?  Is this a bug, a feature, or a
> sardonic comment on the American retail industry?
> 

Um... 5 points for a specific Gnome (10 if yer non-vSOI), or 3 if it's on
Sale (7 for non-vSOIers)... Three *is* still less than five, isn't it? ;)

>>>> Proposal 841/0: Fixing the Past (Wonko)
>>> 
>>> No.  I still don't like that sentence about "The Administrator may
>> prevent..."
>>> and I never did like the part about "the gamestate shall be altered to
>> what
>>> they now would be".
>>> 
>> 
>> Actually, that really ought to be 'to what IT would now be'. Can that be
>> rectified?
> 
> No, it was right the first time in context.  I just didn't quote the full
> context.  It's "the rules and the gamestate shall be altered to what they now
> would be."
> 
> I still don't like it, though. :)

What's wrong with it? We know what the gamestate would be - we've been
playing with it that way. I suppose, even if this fails, we'll still act as
if it were there, whether we want to or not. It just won't be legal ;)
-- 
Wonko

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