SkArcher on 30 Jul 2003 22:27:00 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

30/07/2003 23:20:56, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 12:46  AM, Baron von Skippy wrote:
>>>> Proposal 1589/1: Setting Stuff on Fire For Fun and Profit (Baron von
>>>> Skippy)
>>> No. And for Unbridled Hostility towards Anything McGee, I kick the
>>> Baron in the Ass. Anything found the hole, and didn't even seriously
>>> exploit it; this is a pure ripoff of Anything's scam. I especially
>>> disagree with the proposed titles - if anyone deserves to be "Lord of
>>> the Failure Scam", it's Mr. McGee.
>> -Apologies to Mr. McGee, but it is because e did /not/ seriously 
>> exploit this scam that e doesn't get a "Lord" title. And your Kick is 
>> unjustified - not granting someone respect is not hostility. And how 
>> many times have you ripped someone off? I remember having about 600 
>> points at one point, up until someone - probably you - pulled a scam 
>> that destroyed them. That's hostile if this is, wouldn't you say?-
>By 'Rip someone off' I do not mean 'cause someone to lose points'. I 
>mean that e found a perfectly good scam and you grabbed it. I'll 
>concede that since e didn't exploit it, e probably shouldn't get a 
>'lord' title; but I definitely don't think that anyone else should get 
>one. 'Lord' should be reserved for people who did something clever and 
>got a Win from it; all you did was take Anything McGee's cleverness and 
>try to get a Win from it. Which is perhaps knightworthy, but certainly 
>not lordworthy.

What cleverness? What McGee did was to make a statement in a prop that he edidn't even realise was going to be so large. e did it by mistake

>>>> Proposal 1603/1: Political Go (Rob)
>>> Shelve. As this subgame depends on the rules defining 'players' and
>>> 'checkpoints', it would not be 'the application of a single rule';
>>> therefore, under r1592, it would have no effect.
>> -Well, in that case no subgame can exist. Great. Anyone else want to 
>> completely ignore this?-
>I'd say we'd best repeal r1592.

See Robs point on why this arguement is false

r1592 is necessary to keep the clutter of multiple rules for each subgame from messing the ruleset up


spoon-discuss mailing list