Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Oops

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 11:27  PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> > > -You lost me when you began talking about violating zoning 
> > > ordinances.
> > > Seriously, though, if it's too silly for you (as if such a thing
> > > exists!), vote against it. I like total randomness in this game. It's
> > > a reason to keep coming back day after day. So, unless doing so would
> > > obviously screw everything up completely, I'm more or less likely to
> > > vote for something that adds a little silliness. Now, it does have to
> > > be functional silliness if it wants to add a new rule, I'll grant 
> > > that
> > > much.-
> >
> > I did vote against it. And you voted for it, and if it weren't for the
> > fact that Dave still can technically veto it, the game would now be
> > over. I'm not complaining about your voting for total randomness; I
> > complain because you went against what you just said above by voting
> > for something that was not functional silliness, and that would screw
> > everything up completely.
>
> -"The game would now be over." So you're ignoring completely that the 
> effects TPR described have been disproven a few times over, and that 
> there's no danger, and that you were one of the people argueing 
> against us all being screwed in the first place? I'm just trying to be 
> clear on this point.

I'm not convinced that it has been disproven. I know I've made a number 
of arguments in favor of that, but I can see flaws in all of them; I 
think the issue is really up to someone's judgment. (for example, the 
argument by r10 assumes that the effects of rules created by proposals 
are effects of the proposals themselves, which flies in the face of a 
precedent established something like 45 nweeks ago). I have arguments 
why the game might not end, as do others, but I don't think we've seen 
anything that actually *proves* we're safe. Apart from Glotmorf's point 
that Dave can still veto, of course.

>  And of course I'll vote for /my own proposal,/ and that "repeal all 
> laws" prop was a supplement to the line of thought we were on at the 
> time. Don't call me to task for bending my own general guidelines. 
> They're mine, after all, and I'll vote for or against what I damn well 
> please. Also, I didn't see you warning us that that prop could screw 
> everything up completely beforehand. So don't bitch at me for that, 
> either.-

All I said was that I think people need to think more about random 
silliness props before voting in favor of them. I'm not sure how you've 
construed this as an attack against you personally - it's not intended 
to be one, and I'm sorry if any insult was perceived. I just think we 
need to be more careful, because a slight wording difference and 
failure to overlook votes could have completely obliterated the game.

> > I really would not classify IT or the 'repeal all national laws' as
> > "functional silliness".
> -I voted against "IT." I voted for "repeal all national laws" because 
> it was seemingly harmless silliness. (Note the use of the word 
> "seemingly," by the way. Don't waste anyone's time arguing against 
> that sentence.)-

Again, I'm not trying to attack you; I'm complaining about everyone who 
voted for the props. And not so much your prop as Teucer's; it 
practically declares that we have no ruleset all by itself, as we could 
be considered an international body; your prop just makes it clearer 
that we're included in the law-wipe.

--
Wonko

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