[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 23 BALLOT

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

>> Proposal 991/1: Fixing The Bandwidth (Wonko)
> 
> No.  Too clumsy.  And it eliminates any definition of 1/2 a proposal, or how
> 1/2 of a proposal can be made, yet it still provides a rule for its bandwidth.
> And, if, as Wonko says, one rule can supercede the others, regardless of
> having to obey ALL rules, this rule eliminates fractional bandwidth for club
> props and zero bandwidth for judgment props.

Dude, 1/2 props are defined in r19. As for judgment and fractional
bandwidth, it doesn't eliminate them any more than the current version does.
Decide for yourself whether it did or not.

>> Proposal 995/0: Service Malls (Wonko)
> 
> A reluctant yes.  I see what Wonko's doing...e's creating a rubber stamp for
> collections of entities that are created as a set on the grid.  But this could
> have been done better.

I admit that I probably could have done this better, but that's what I get
for proposing without sleep.

>> Proposal 999/1: Spiffiness with Speeders (Wonko)
> 
> No.  If the Service Mall proposal doesn't pass, this has a hole in it.
> 
>> Proposal 1000/3: Crime Doesn't Pay (Wonko)
> 
> No.  It's dependent on service malls, I don't like those floating grid cells,
> and it doesn't say how cops come out of hiding.

I could fix that if you vote SHELVE...

>> Proposal 1001/0: Wealthy Bastard goes Public (Wonko)
> 
> No.  This is a violation of r578.G.1, which regulates the method by which
> proposals can create societies.  Besides, I don't see why we should vote for
> Wonko having a profit center.

Proposals are allowed to have any change to the gamestate they want in them.
The fact that r578.G.1 permits proposals to define societies is irrelevant -
they could anyway.

>> Proposal 1002/0: Stop It! (Wonko)
> 
> No.  We're all pains in the ass.  It's part of the definition of the game.
> 
> BTW, I don't think this counts as a limerick, per r437.A.2.  The fourth line
> has too many syllables.

It's not measured in syllables, it's measured in poetic feet. Lots of poems
do things like this.

>> Proposal 1004/2: Improving Speeders (Wonko)
> 
> No, since it's dependent on WBE, which is a Wonko freebie and illegal in its
> current form.

Except WBE isn't illegal.

>> Proposal 1044/0: Been there, Done that, Bought the T-shirt (Wonko)
> 
> No.  Titles will do nicely.

It might as well be a title, it's just funnier.

>> Proposal 1049/3: The Power of Dave (Wonko)
> 
> No.  You didn't say which nweek's ballot the proposal must be in.  This could
> be used to retroactively change rules.

No, it couldn't. It says, we treat the proposal as if it had been vetoed by
the Admin. On the other hand, we've already implemented the proposal, so it
doesn't matter if *now* we treat it like it had been vetoed. The past
already happened, and even without anti-retroactivity clause, we can't
change the past, for the same reason we can't change it in real life.

>> Proposal 1059/0: Fix the scotch (Wonko)
> 
> No.  There's already a formula for a Scottish Gnome.

You object to multiple ways to mix the same Gnome?

>> Proposal 1060/1: The Royal Flush (Wonko)
> 
> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.
> 
>> Proposal 1061/0: The Hand of Hands (Wonko)
> 
> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.
> 
>> Proposal 1062/0: The International Stop Symbol (Wonko)
> 
> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.

They say, 'Add to the hands rule'. That's how to modify the rule. Or have
they changed the definition of 'add' while I wasn't looking?
-- 
Wonko

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