Re: [spoon-discuss] Ow.

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

26/07/2003 01:30:53, bd <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Friday 25 July 2003 08:22 pm, Glotmorf wrote:
>> On 7/25/03 at 8:02 PM bd wrote:
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> >Seems to me like the game exploded again. That said, could someone
>> >summarize
>> >what, if anything, we know happened over the past nweek or so? Reading the
>> >spoon-business messages [[ in the wrong order, accidentally ]] made my
>> >head
>> >hurt...
>>
>> Well, first of all, Wonko decided the rules said e could be a dimship and
>> tried to move in the direction of Charm for a win.  E eventually conceded
>> to my argument that there's a rule that says how someone could move in the
>> direction of Charm, and how e did it wasn't the way, and therefore e didn't
>> win.  So no win for Wonko.  There was a CFI on it, and I ruled against the
>> win.
>>
>> Secondly, someone (McGee or SkArcher, I don't remember which) tried putting

It was McGee. E initially just wanted to reactivate the Judges rule, but said 'if this prop fails, repeal this rule', to which I (initially) objected. 
However, There is a clause which says that 'effects specifically related to prop failure happen' - which can (if you are in a bloody minded enough mood) be 
read to mean the a failure clause is valid. So therefore we all started to make up silly props to get ourselves Wins.

You picked the wrong fortnight to go away :P

>> a clause in a proposal that said, "If this proposal fails, take this
>> action," which kicked off a big argument about whether you could have "if
>> this fails" clauses in proposals.  This led to a flurry of proposals
>> (including mine :P) that essentially said, "I win.  If this proposal fails,
>> I still win."  Common feeling (not to mention common sense) is that failure
>> clauses don't work, but no one wants to be left out if someone's handing
>> out wins, so a couple of us jumped on the Baron's bandwagon for eir prop
>> rewrite.  I believe there's a CFI on it.  Rob summed it all up rather
>> nicely, I thought, when e said, "You're all fucking nuts."

I agree with Rob's rationale, but not his statement. We are all fucking nuts, BUT the rule does say that, so we therefore have to play by the rules, 
because, well, that is in the rules too....

>>
>> Then there was talk of Rob's subgame and the Baron's desire to implement
>> World of Time magick...but you said the past week, right?
>
>Just about (more like 12 days, but..) I'll probably catch the discussion once 
>the smoke clears, and 'normal' gameplay resumes.
>- -- 
>bd
>..you could spend *all day* customizing the title bar.  Believe me.  I
>speak from experience."
>(By Matt Welsh)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE/Icu9x533NjVSos4RApqKAJ9hl3aNinyD2rF9jwCLB3OFgUtGTACgn6/U
>YFbtmfkRz3FDa0Zg3aci+us=
>=m0Jv
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>spoon-discuss mailing list
>spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
>
 




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