[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] something constructive

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/7/02 at 11:36 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Ok, enough ranting, I'm gonna do something constructive now.
>Dave, I do all this to reduce your headaches.
>
>I make the following proposal:
>{{__Bailing the Water, Not Fixing the Hull__
>Deactivate Rule 946, __B Nomic Stock Exchange__
>[[I think it's patched up, but nobody's using it pretty much, and I still
>think it's a minefield.]]

One nweek goes by, and "nobody's using it pretty much"?  How long since someone made a Judgment Prop, or an Offer?  Or siren bait?  Please keep things in perspective.

>Deactivate Rule 1077, __Mining The Grid__
>[[Fix it up Glotmorf, you have the fixings of something real good here.
>Just not yet.  This fixes the 'spend 70 BNS to destroy just about
>anything'
>problem']]

*ahem*  That's not a bug.  It's a feature. :)

>Repeal Rule 6, __Game Definitions__
>[[This gets rid of the 'everything must have uniquely identifying names'
>problem; those definitions are flawed anyway, and by being #6 breaks the
>rules about numbers.
>This, by the way is another one that only Wonko and I voted against.  Must
>not rant, must not rant....]]

It most certainly does not get rid of the "everything must have uniquely identifying names" problem.  Rule #2 still says everything must have uniquely identifying names, and most of the things in my CFI other than points have been defined as objects for rather a long time.  Someone could have made the same CFI several nweeks ago regarding gnomes, but all that's on the other side of the statute of limitations now.  Rule 6 only makes the debate slightly less subjective than it might be otherwise.  "Entity" is defined in the dictionary as something that exists.  The rules that define those fungible objects say said objects "exist".  Hence, the problem always has been there.

Rule 6 doesn't need fixing.  Rule 2 does.

And what do you mean that rule 6 "breaks the rules about numbers"?  Rule 5 says, "Proposals, Rules and other objects requiring serial numbers, unless specified by the entities that create them, are assigned unique identification numbers that consist of the smallest integer that is larger than the largest identification number in use at the time of the object's creation."  The key phrase in there is, "unless specified by the entities that create them."  Well, I specified.  So did my proposal.

If yer gonna rant, guy, please do so coherently.

>If any changes to the charters of any societies were made between the
>submitting and and passing of this proposal, undo those changes and any
>results of them. [[I'm basically freezing societies from right when I
>submit
>it to when these safeguards take place]]

That'll include any attempts to clean up after the changes that have already taken place.

>Remove all members of Wonko's Slaves, except Wonko.  If any change of
>points
>or BNS happened as a result of membership in Wonko's Slaves, undo those
>changes.

Wouldn't it be easier to block the creation of the society via a proposal, as is described in the societies rule?

>Remove all text in the charter of The Secret Mookies after and including
>the
>first instance of "Members of The Secret Mookies named Wonko" in that
>charter.  Return to Wonko any points and BNS transferred solely as a
>result
>of that removed section.

Reluctant agreement, after all that yelling about tyranny of the majority I did last nweek.  Though I note that Wonko has now left the Secret Mookies, so this point is a non-issue.

>Create the following rule:
>{{__Bureaucracratic Deadlock__{*(Society), 6*}
>Society charters may not be changed, except by proposal or administarial
>bookeeping .  This rule takes precedence over any rule that would allow
>society charters to be changed by any other method than the two stated in
>the previous sentence.  [[Repeal this once societies get fixed]]
>}}

You'll have to define "administarial bookkeeping", especially since I believe that's how they get changed now: someone says, "I change the charter of my society thusly", and Mr. A goes and does administarial [sic] bookkeeping to make it so.

Besides, it's my club and I make the rules, so there.  Nyah.

>Create the following rule:
>{{__These things matter__{*(Vote), 12*}
>No other rule or proposal can modify, change, add, remove, regulate, or
>discount any votes for Unauthored Proposals.  Each player, and only
>players,
>get exactly one vote, which is fully under eir control, for Unauthored
>Proposals.  Unauthored Proposals are deemed to have signifigance, and the
>true feeling of the players should be allowed to be expressed on them.
>[[This gets rid of Hands, Drunkeness, and Mind Tricks for Declarations of
>(Dis)Respect, Ministerial No-Confidence, and anything else we make
>Unauthored.]]
>}}

Okay, this one I actually agree with.

>[[Oh Glotmorf?  I changed my mind _somewhat_ about your Saga prop.  I
>still
>think it has too much overhead, but I do believe that we should have an
>easy
>way to transverse all the proposals that contain BNomic History (props
>with
>in-game storyline included).  I've got some ideas, but I think we should
>work together on this one, and we should split the points from the vote if
>nothing else.  Can you get on IRC?]]

My IRC-able hours are somewhat limited to EST daytime and godawful late at night.  Did you have a date and time in mind?

						Glotmorf


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