Daniel Lepage on 12 Aug 2003 02:17:16 -0000


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

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



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