Re: [spoon-discuss] thoughts on props

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,

> About the bandwidth prop:  Clarifications need to be done, but this is only
> a partial fix.  I don't feel like going through the whole ruleset right now,
> but my loophole detector flickers occasionally when I use it on this prop.

I think I did a pretty thorough job. I like mine more than Glotmorf's
because mine opens bandwidth to more spiffiness - under mine, it would be
really easy to, say, set up a system for mining for proposals, or finding
them in bonus boxes, or whatever we can think of.

Regarding Rob's complaint, I don't think the double negative quite destroys
bandwidth. But I would like the admin to correct that, and also fix the
'proposasl' I mention.

> About the Service Mall prop: seems pointless, except a little bit of
> simplification and minor changes.  I think Wonko's just trying to get
> points.

It's useful because a) with WBE I want to stick some stuff in with the
Elbonian airways, so it's easier just to say, "stick it in the service mall"
than to specificy all the squares that contain things for each thing, and b)
I wanted a way to destroy the Elbonia posts all at once, and it's a lot
simpler to group them as one object to do this.

> 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.

I like this proposal - there are some interesting ways to have fun in it...

> 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.

There are two because I think the first one is much more likely to pass than
the second, and I didn't want to lose #1 because people hated #2.  Yes,
clarifications are what CFI's are for. I'm not arguing about that. I'm just
thinking that it would be convenient if the admin could make little
commented blurbs at the bottoms of rules, saying, "CFI XXX determined that
this doesn't apply to such and such, etc."


> About the Criminal Behavior prop: Seems a bit messy, especially since the -5
> spots aren't defined.

Fixed.

> About the Wealthy Bastard Enterprizes prop: Sounds like fun.  Make the
> minister post the info too.

I think I have to anyway... regardless, I intend to.

> About the Pain in the Ass prop:  To open-ended, and Dave has enough to do
> without deciding a bunch of kicks.

If there are that many kicks, Dave can probably just say, "None of these are
worthy. Begone!"

> About the Tango prop: It's so wierd, it's good!  I think weather and
> temperature in general need revamping soon.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that, but so far the idea well has come up
dry.

> About the Empire Grid prob: ME HEAD HURT!  Make a new grid, and invent a new
> way to get to it.  Of course, if you vote for my uber-prob, it'll do most of
> the work for you.

How hard would it be for you to take a bit of your uber-prop and stick it in
now so this is easy now?

> About the House Grem crap: Stop forcing those poor gremlins into your dirty
> work!

I agree.

> About the Anti-Brook prop (repeal rule 409): Why?

They're ugly and kind of stupid. They exist for only one reason - Uin (or
was e The Reality Police then?) wanted to add 'Garth Brooks' to the LOGAS,
and couldn't unless it was possible to Garth a Brook.

> About the Capital Resources prop: Nah.  The entire financial system needs to
> be completly rebuild, not given another revision.

I'm against this prop because of two things: Clean point <-> BNS
conversions, and point/BNS -> rsrc conversions period. If there's free
conversion between points and BNS, then why have two different things? If
Raw Materials can be converted to points and BNS, how are they any different
from everything else?

> About the Anti-Realms prop (repeal rule 469):  I agree, but what's the point
> in taking it out?

Cleanliness? Though I'd agree that I'd much prefer to be voting for a single
proposal that repealed a dozen obsolete rules than a dozen seperate
proposals...

> About the Undo the Stock Market prop: Way too confusing, as the economy has
> been too thouroughly changed (stuff bought, etc), and besides, Wonko's broke
> anyway.

I agree that the Undo thing is icky - it would require a lot of sorting
through hundreds of messages to deal with. That's bad.

> About the Rings of Summon prop: I like it, but the Blind Faith and Power
> rings should affect the grid or other stuff, and not props/rules.

I'm in favor of more connections between the Grid game and the Nomic game -
right now, it's more like a Nomic game that happens to be writing a seperate
game.

> About the vSOI v.2 prop: What if vSET is not defined, as the lands prop
> doesn't pass?

Don't vote for vSOI v.2 if you don't vote for vSET.

> About the mining prop: The types of the squares after mining aren't clear to
> me.  As for elevation, just say that the height is reduced by 1.  And as for
> tunneling, I still don't think we have an organized enough ruleset for a 3-D
> grid.

Tunneling and mining seem overly complicated to me.

> About the Default Chutzpah prop: I thought this was already done.

All rules were given Chutzpah 1 by the original Chutzpah Creation proposal.
After that, every new rule was automatically given Chutzpah one if nothing
else was defined. So yes, it has already been done.

> About the Definitions prop:  My uber-prob, once it's done, will address that
> stuff, and some of your definitions conflict with mine.  I don't see how
> this will convince anyone to vote no, but that's my thoughts.

Then PROPOSE THE UBER PROP! I'd like to see a ruleset that works NOW, not
just hear a promise of a ruleset that may work once you're done.

On the other hand, some of these definitions are already defined

> About the Defining Bandwidth prop: I'm too tired to think right now.

It does more or less the same thing mine does, except that it still doesn't
technically define 'bandwidth', and it also doesn't allow for the same level
of flexibility and general spiffiness mine does.

> About the Luigi Update prop: I thought I fixed this.  No, wait, it was my
> uber-prop.  Very well, carry on then.

PROPOSE THE STUPID UBER-PROP!

> About the Debunking prop:  negated then applied elsewhere?  Ambiguous.  And
> I think there should be no debunkation limit.  If you don't believe, you
> don't believe all nweek.

Ambiguous, and useless, as it says that Debunking has to happen before the
action takes place - there's only one Priestly action available right now,
and it's instantaneous; There is no "before".

> About the Give Scarf prop: yes

Why don't you just remind me next nweek?

> About the Nseasons prop: more weather craziness.

Yeah, but this time it actually DOES something.

> About the Wine List Edit prop that a drunk BvS made:  "Wine List, 401.C"???

That's pretty nonsensical.

> About the Put Hands on Grid prop: ambigous.  define the conditions better,
> and which hands better.

I think the problem is a typo - missing 'r' syndrome. Admin fix.

> About the Remove the King Gremlin Reference prop: why?  What if we bring the
> king back?

Then we'll put the reference back. Undefined References scattered throughout
the ruleset are a bad thing.

> About the Limit Faith prop: no.  And it doesn't even fix all the right
> stuff.

It fixes the part that's actually WRONG. I dunno, was there another thing
you wanted fixed?

> About the screwed economy prop: too tired to think.  I like it somewhat, but
> what if people (not a person) legitamately get that much?

Then the Minister of Economic affairs should find a way to alleviate the
problem.

> About the hanging chad prop: too tired to think.

Enforced Abstention, eh? Do I get this first, then, 'cause I lost 22 points
of Charm this nweek to my failed Apophis Scam?

> About The Power of Dave prop: I like but the punishments need to be more
> even.  There should be very little chance to get off easy.

There is, I think. You'll almost always lose at least 7 points, and a lot of
the time you'll get cursed or turned into a Toad, too.

> About the NomiCrack prop: I like it, just fix the football part, and clarify
> other stuff.

Ugly typoes and ambiguities here.


-- 
Wonko

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