Re: [spoon-discuss] hop on props

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/26/02 at 7:37 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Orc's Thoughts:
>About the Nomvivor prop: I don't like how absentee votes are done.  Allow
>people to cast votes beforehand, and don't limit it like absentees.
>
>Glotmorf's Reply:
>Some method of absentee voting has to be in place, otherwise someone could
>win
>Nomvivor just by not being around for nweeks at a time.  Since the method
>for
>absentee voting is random, it's fair to all concerned.
>
>Aside from that, casting votes in advance?  Sounds like r18 to me.  As in
>permitted.
>
>Orc's ReReply:
>The first part makes no sense.  If you don't vote, then you will most
>likely
>voted off by others.

If you don't vote once, people will probably vote out those they would have voted out anyway.  If you repeatedly don't vote, why

>  And you say 'During each proposal voting period',
>limiting when votes can be cast.  Oh, and clarify how the voted-off
>person's
>vote is counted next time.  I understand it, but it's ambiguous.

The general idea is that the voted-off person's vote is to be a tiebreaker, especially when it gets down to two players left.

>===================================================
>
>Orc's Thoughts:
>About the Cleanliness props: such clarifications are up to interpertation,
>and that's what CFI's are for.  And such clarifications by the admin
>could inadvertently cause other problems.  As for the part changing rules
>based on CFI's, that's what we are for, and see the previous sentence.
>Seems to me like Wonko's grabbing for points again, especially since he
>made 2 props.
>
>Glotmorf's Reply:
>If I'm reading the Cleanliness prop right, all it's doing is letting the
>Admin
>put a comment in a rule that shows what CFIs regarding it got ruled what,
>thus
>indicating the proper scope of the rule.  Annotated law books do the same
>thing.
>It's not a bad idea.
>
>Orc's ReReply:
>I missed the comments part on the first prop, but NOTE: cleanliness propS.
>Plural. More than one.  The second allows full edit capabilities, and can
>lead to the most problems.  I was wrong about the first prop, I admit it.
>But I think that all such comments should require something like [[Admin
>comment: yadayadayada...]], so we can tell them apart.

I seem to recall saying something about the "More Cleanliness" prop.  I don't like it either.

>==============================================
>
>Glotmorf's Reply:
>I'd like to see these upgrades be more public domain.  Call it industrial
>espionage.
>
>AND THEN:
>
>Sorry.  Came up with it on my own.  Totally separate research department.
>No
>secrets in nature, logic or unreality.
>
>Orc's ReReply:
>Uhh Huhh... Sure.. ;p

Dude.  I did not take anything from your uber-prop.  I have not looked at your uber-prop.  I am not interested in your uber-prop unless and until it's actually a prop.  Kindly leave the mud in the grid where it belongs.

						Glotmorf


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