|Daniel Lepage on 31 Jul 2003 01:31:10 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT|
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:
-From where I stand, Wonko, you're not making the most stable argument. You're saying, essentially, that we shouldn't jump on possible ways to win as fast as possible, which is something you've been doing for a while now.What cleverness? What McGee did was to make a statement in a prop thathe edidn't even realise was going to be so large. e did it by mistakeNot exactly by mistake, if I read eir msgs correctly; e just didn't realize the full implications of it. That doesn't change the fact that nobody else did anything particularly clever either.
I didn't say you shouldn't jump on ways to win; I'm saying you shouldn't jump on things that you didn't come up with, unless you've got a new take on it. If you'd done something differently than Anything did, I wouldn't have objected, because at least you'd be coming up with something new (that's why I don't really object to WC's Society victory attempt; though I don't think it works either). But I think that if you, SkArcher, and Glotmorf all get Wins out of this, it's devaluing the Win, because none of you three did anything that seems particularly special or winworthy; you just copied what McGee did.
You even take people's scams when you don't agree with them, just on the off chance that you're wrong.
But the one time you don't do this, you've got the moral high ground? I think not. As things stand, you're the only one arguing Anything's case here. If e doesn't have a problem with it (and indeed is being a far better sport about this than I would have expected, even trying to repay me points /you/ tried to take), why do you?-
I'm not arguing Anything's case. E says e doesn't deserve any credit, and that's fine with me. I'm arguing against your attempt to give yourself credit for the scam, when I don't see how you have any more claim to it than e does. Or than Rob does, for that matter - e was the first person to incorporate the bit about 'other events related to the passage or failure of the proposal' into the ruleset (p115, nweek 1).
-- Wonko _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss