Re: [spoon-discuss] damn usurpers

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> For what it's worth...
> 
> 2. My primary objective in all of this -- to demonstrate that, yes, that *was*
> a loophole that could be exploited (sometimes saying "I told you so" *is*
> enough), and the imagination of all the expressions passing over particular
> people's faces -- has been accomplished; anything after this point is largely
> gravy.

Why bribe the justice system, then? I would have been fine with you seizing
power, if you hadn't done so using what I consider to be the most despicable
method anyone can use.

> 3. I would rather fancy that the win and the titles get awarded, if perhaps as
> souveniers of a fun day at the fair.

Except I still don't believe you've done anything worthy of a title. You
made an attempted takeover, which failed because it wasn't legal, and then
you tried to make it legal by assaulting the integrity of the game itself. I
usually try not to let myself become overly enraged, but I must admit I blew
it when you bribed bd.

> 4. I honestly don't have the time or the energy these days to rule the game;
> the Overlord rule I posted was something I thought of downgrading myself to.
> bd is correct: it leaves the current system intact.  That's not a bug; it's a
> feature.  It's not meant to do away with the proposal/vote system, but merely
> to make things a little more dynamic.  Think in terms of a constitutional
> monarchy rather than a despotism.

The Overlord rule, if you changed it to allow, say, a 4/5 majority of the
non-overlord players to overthrow the lord, and to allow the Admin to
nullify any overlordial (well, it should be a word) actions, then I'd
actually vote for it.

I do not approve of your claiming to have inserted it into the game via
power dependant on abusing the game.

> 5. While I believe the course of actions followed by bd, the Baron and myself
> were in the rules, much of the rest of it was the spiraling out of control of
> emotions and arguments following the possibility being raised that the Baron
> wasn't a valid judge.  The resulting deluge of email appears to have been a
> shouting contest to see who could yell the loudest.  Seeing as how I hate
> yelling (not to mention reading 50 messages' worth of it), and hate being
> driven to feel that yelling is necessary, perhaps we can set up some sort of
> queued argument system, where everyone has a chance to say something once
> before others try to turn it up a notch.

I agree that the shouting match has gotten kind of out of hand; it would be
better if people could concatenate all eir responses into a single email.

And I STILL don't see any reason why the actions you took to 'take over' the
game were legal. As far as I can tell, the argument was that since, "Actions
in this rule [were] not the only actions societies [could] take", and the
other actions weren't defined anywhere, then all actions must be legal. But
A) there's no reason to assume that all other actions are legal even if
other actions aren't defined, and B) the other actions *were* defined -
things like, "Big Rocks may be Purchased" (r301), and "Any entity may accept
an  Offer" (rNumber-I-Don't-Remember).

So unless there's something I'm missing here, it wasn't legal, and all
you've done is make a mockery of the justice system. Besides which, you've
split the game into two seperate threads, because the outcomes of all those
CFI's you 'deleted' affect your ability to delete them.

> 6. I would like to reiterate my case, as proposed a few nweeks ago, for the
> clock stopping at the end of an nday until a Recognizer is posted.  Reading
> these arguments alone is eating into whatever time I might otherwise spend
> making proposals.  And that's not counting Dave.

But that means that every nday, Dave *has* to make a Recognizer, which would
actually mean *more* work for em. Plus, the game would slow to a crawl, as
every nday would have to be at least 2 days long (because ndays only change
at 00:00:00 UTC).

Maybe once every three ± one ndays?

> By the way, people, you can only have one defendent per CFI.

No, I botched the judicial reform. Orc's right. Repair proposal pending.

-- 
Wonko

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