[spoon-discuss] Comments

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I'm about to leave for Brazil, so I thought I'd make a few 
parting comments before I go. I'll be back in a week and a half, at 
which point I might finally have enough time to start playing again.

Anyway, some comments:

Dave said:
> > I vote yes on all items.
>
> No you don't. Voting closed yesterday.

If it's possible, Dave, it would be very helpful if the ballot email 
mentioned when votes were due. I suspect that a number of people meant 
to vote earlier this past nweek, but didn't because they thought they 
had more time.

Dave said:
> Proposal 1812/0 (Standardized Elections) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, SkArcher, The Voice
> NEG: Sagitta, Zarpint
> Counts (Y/N/A/S) : (4-2-0-0). Measure passes. Wonko gains 12 points.
> Created r1823/0.
> Created r1824/0.

What the hell? I made this something like four nweeks ago, decided it 
was a dumb idea, voted against it, and left. Then it gets shelved three 
times and finally passes? What happened?

Dave said:
> Proposal 1813/1 (Fix The Contradictions) (Zarpint):
> Counts (Y/N/A/S) : (4-0-2-0). Measure passes. Zarpint gains 15 points.
> Created r10/3.
> Created r15/17
> Created r129/5.
> Created r497/2.
> Created r1583/1.
> Repealed r1302.
> Created r33/9.
> Created r19/14.
> Removed all Layer attributes.

What's wrong with layers?

Zarpint said:
> 1. Below it says I had six props passed. Are you not counting the 
> Quote Prop?
> I don't see why- they are not currently classified as Unauthored.

If that was for Charm bonuses, it's because quote props don't count 
towards Charm. Unauthored props are badly dealt with right now, which 
is my fault - they're defined properly in r19 as proposals with no 
passage bonuses or prop costs, but still defined in r899 as props that 
get automatically issued by the Scoring Gremlin. In fact, r899 is 
entirely redundant: the definition of UPs is in r19, and the fact that 
only one vote may be cast per player on them is established by r23, 
which states that the polls called on UPs as part of the Ballot are all 
Strict.

Sagitta said:
> A player may smear any Chocolate Eclair in eir possession over any
> other object in eir possession, any object that is in no-one's
> possession, or any Player.  This destroys the eclair, and the object is
> said to have been smeared.  This has no lasting effect except as
> specified by the rules.

Later on, you talk about what happens when a card is smeared, but this 
seems to indicate that you can only smear cards in your own hand. Is 
that intentional?

Sagitta said:
> The rules do not say anywhere that any Age Group is higher than another
> (although common sense would suggest that we Civilians are the highest,
> of course).  Therefore the Upper House consists of only those players
> in the Veteran Age Group (excluding Wild Card who is on leave), i.e.

It is when such ambiguities as using the word 'higher' without 
explicitly defining it arise that we fall back upon intent and game 
custom. I can vouch for the fact that the intended meaning is that the 
later Age Groups are Higher, so that Oligarch is higher than Veteran, 
which is higher than Civilian, etc.
	Game custom also dictates that this is the case, as that rule has been 
interpreted that way before.


I will now go to Brazil. I remain On Leave.

--
Wonko

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that 
you end up being governed by your inferiors."
     -Plato

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