Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Votes, nweek 23

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:58:14PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>> 
>>> 995 NO  So you'd have two Elbonian Airways on the same
>>> spot?
>> 
>> No, I'm removing the bit in the rules about Elbonian Airways being on those
>> squares, and putting it back in with Service Malls. It doesn't place a
>> second Airways anywhere.
> 
> Hmm. That clarifies things... but I still don't see the point. See,
> Wonko, you propose tons of stuff, and some of it is rather good, but I
> don't want to just give you points for every proposal that I'm undecided
> about.

It makes the system for destroying them much easier. Really, this proposal
is a proposal to allow Elbonian Airways and their related buildings to be
destroyed, but I put in Service Malls because otherwise it's really ugly.

Plus, I intend to create more stuff that will be at every (6n,6m) square
(where n and m are positive integers less than 4). It's gonna make the
ruleset look A LOT nicer if I can just say, "There's one of these in each
Service Mall", as opposed to having a dozen objects all of which make
references to every grid square with x and y coordinates that are integral
multiples of 6.

>>> 1043 NO  Not necessary.
>> 
>> Clarification is always good.
> 
> Well, the CFJ says that you can't decrease anyone else's dimensions
> anyway, right?

Yes, but only because of another rule that was set up to safeguard against
this sort of thing. If the rule really doesn't want that to happen, it
should forbid it itself, instead of relying on the safety net.

Right now, a minor tinker in the Chutzpah rule, or of the Chutzpah of either
rule, could suddenly allow it again.

>>> 1059 NO  There's no such thing as a Gbnome either.
>> 
>> Admin rectification.
> 
> I thought that had to happen before voting. I may be confused.

The Admin is empowered to correct typos in any game document. E could
actually wait until it was part of the ruleset, then rectify it if e wanted.

>>> 1060 NO
>> 
>> What could I do to this proposal so that you would like it next nweek if I
>> made it again?
> 
> Using the Royal Flush seems like one of those obscure actions that would
> only be useful in very specific situations and which everyone would
> forget about. Remember the King Gremlin? Did anyone ever Oppress
> anything?

I would have used it this nweek had it not been repealed - I want to vote!

-- 
Wonko

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