| Orc In A Spacesuit on 13 Oct 2002 07:53:02 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 24 BALLOT |
From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >Proposal 1063/0: The Fish is Dead, Long Smell the Fish (Glotmorf) >> >>The tower serves no purpose now; while it admittedly looks neat on Orc's >>graphic, I'm not convinced that's a sufficient reason to keep it. >> >>My intended vote: yes. > >I see no point in getting rid of it. I generally vote no for things I >don't >find useful.Those are two interesting sentences to see together. I mean, if the tower isn't useful, why keep it around? :)
Vote for PROPS I don't find useful. I find the Tower has a certain charm about it, anyway.
>> >Proposal 1080/0: Wind (Again) (The Voice) >>>>I personally wouldn't mind seeing thrown things get plastered against the>>boundaries as a result of a sudden gale, but the reason I'm asking this >be >>shelved is that it doesn't allow for Airborne things (r301.b.4) or >>airspeeders. >> >>My intended vote: shelve. > >The way I see it, The Voice has got a good thing going. Shelve if you >wish, >I'm voting yes.What about airborne things? They're thrown, but they're not yet caught. Shouldn't a gale have some effect on them?
Yes, but no matter which way you vote, it won't. But that can be fixed by prop later, but The Voice may not be around to fix the prop this nweek.
>>- duties are assigned to the Curator at one point and to "Minister in>>charge of managing Portraits (Admin's choice)" at another; this can stand>>to be solidified > >Well, it is pretty clear. I made specifications, so that Dave can decide >what e wants.What I meant was, at one point it says Curator, and at another point it says something other than Curator. Shouldn't they both say Curator?
So what? Either terminology works.
>>- the beginning statement creates an altering-the-past ambiguity; if Mr. >A >>doesn't like it, he can always veto it >>It's not a veto. I just makes it instantly ineffective from that point on.That's not what the proposal says. If it said the rule became ineffective, that would be what you say it says. What it says, though, is that the proposal shall have no effect if Mr. A says so. But either the proposal has already had its effect (it's been implemented), or the effect of the proposal is waiting for a nweek to see if Mr. A disapproves. Or we have to go back in time to undo the effect of the proposal should Mr. A disapprove. This is very unclear.
Well, a rule says no retroactive effects. So it only works from then on.
Besides, if this proposal passes, and Mr. A disapproves, you keep your points, as opposed to the traditional veto, where you don't get any points. Why should your proposal get preferential veto treatment?
Vetoes can only be done if less than 2/3 or 3/4 of the voters say yes. Plus, e can still Veto if e wants.
>>- "The Curator and the Administrator may decide between themselves who is>>responsible for what duties": this is either a do-nothing, or a conflict >>with r625, depending on your point of view; the minister is responsible >for >>eir duties unless Mr. A decides to shoulder them, which is either the >same >>as this line or is an override of it > >Well, in either case, it's true. Who cares, it works.If it's a conflict, it doesn't work. If it's ambiguous, it works until some situation comes up that breaks it.
If there's a conflict, one will win, and since they are the same, it doesn't matter which. And there's no ambiguity; either the admin or the Curator does each thing.
>>- C.3.1: the curator gets paid if all eir duties are completed, even if >Mr. >>A is the one who winds up doing them; I have a problem with that > >ONE GOSH-DARN POINT! And considering everything I've done, do you guys >think I would leave this all up to Dave? And that can be fixed if that's >a >major sticking point.I don't think you would mean to, but things happen. People get sick. People get busy. People get shot by snipers in white boxy trucks. (Did I mention I live close to DC?) Anyway, I did vote shelve.
Well, if there are problems, something can be done later via prop. Heck, make a new prop now to fix it if you want.
>> >Proposal 1092/0: A New Wing for The Gallery (Orc In a Spacesuit) >> >>I'll be generous and shelve this one too, since it's a point freebie if >it >>passes and p1091 gets shelved. Besides, I'd like to see a slightly more >>specific definition of "public representations of the game state", and I >>think the bit about it not being part of the 20 point/nweek limit is in >>conflict with r625.a.4. >>It's whatever we say is a representation. Look it up in a dictionary (I'm>not being harsh, though it might look that way). And there's control, as >Dave decides how many points are awarded, if any. And it says MAY, so >it's >not a duty, and so isn't in conflict.Okay, but I'm sticking with Shelve, since it's dependent on p1091, even though it wasn't described that way.
So? It won't hurt, and this is basically is a way for me to be rewarded a bit for continued work in the field.
>> >Proposal 1093/0: Guys aren't eirs! (Orc In a Spacesuit) >> >>The current r7 doesn't mandate the use of Spivak pronouns; this does. > >Well, the way it works now, everything is 100% Spivak. This makes it >Spivak >only if the gender is indeterminent.Everything is 100% Spivak because people have taken pains to make it such, not because they were required to. This new version of r7 would require them to.
If people want to, they can use "he/she", "him/her", etc, or go with plurals and use "they". Or they can use Spivak. "Understood to replace" is ambiguous; it makes it look like they replace them always.
Orc In A Spacesuit is still on IRC at irc.slashdot.net, #bnomic _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss