Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 60 Ballot

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28 Mar 2004 at 3:32, Zarpint wrote:

> Since you've misread several of my props, I wanted to explain.

>

> 1825: An 'available public display' is exactly what those words mean

> in English. It has to display the required information and be publicly

> available to all of us. If that stripper could provide the appropriate

> information, and she were publicly available to all of us, she would

> work. It's no different that any other English term used in the rules.

Except it's not defined, and therefore can be declared an eclair.  Nowhere is "reasonable" used in the rules, and therefore a poster of the roster theoretically doesn't have to be reasonable.  If I was responsible for the roster, I could theoretically post it on my blog.  Or, even better, my wiki.

This is why we require the explicit designation of fora, so that we have a, heh, reasonable chance of finding something publicly posted.

Make it a forum.  It's not that hard.

> 1826: Well this isn't mine. But what would stop you is:

> 1. The rules do not provide for the declaring of tampons,

> and 2. once you declare it, it's not undeclared. Right now tampons

> don't exist, so they are neither declared objects nor undeclared

> objects.

In that case, this lacks the definition of an undeclared object.  Or a declared one, for that matter.  So far the only use of the words "declared" and "undeclared" in the rules have to do with gender.  Is the author of the proposal suggesting objects have declarable gender?  If not, there needs to be more detail.

> 1827: This isn't mine either. But we would not go back to nweek 0,

> because it is clear from the rule that only rules created that were

> changes to the rules made by prop 1812 would be repealed.

I'm glad it's clear to you.  It's not explicitly said, though, and you didn't grow up with uin.  It's not that grievous a change to make.  Besides, I'd still like to know what rules the author thinks were modified by p1812.

> 1828: Rule 24 certainly did something to me. By putting the entire

> burden of updating the Roster on the Admin, it caused the Roster to be

> out-of-date.

Tch.  That statement effectively says Dave can't handle the job.  That's not entirely true, and I would never say that about him.  It's certainly true that the job is a lot of work, and that, since it's a manual task, it's subject to human error, and it would be nice if someone could help him with it, but that's not the same as saying he can't do the job.

> And I don't understand your objection here.

> 1. If at any point there is no Roster Minister, an election is

> immediately held. Kurt Godel will enforce this. 2. Since the Admin may

> perform the duties of a Minister (625.A.2) we lose nothing by allowing

> an additional person to help with this important job. If we have a

> Roster Minister, and neither e nor Dave is updating the Roster, we are

> still better off than if we don't have one, and Dave is not updating

> the Roster.

Besides, you miss my point.  I want it said explicitly in the rules that the roster must be maintained, independent of who does the maintaining.  That way, if absolutely necessary, an out-of-date roster can be used as grounds for disputing or refuting otherwise-undesirable events.

> 1829: You do not have this straight at all. A player recognizes a

> Streamlined Emergency by making ___or endorsing___ a Quick Fix. The

> idea is that in a Streamlined Emergency, there will only be one or two

> of them - otherwise it isn't effective to use the Procedure, and the

> regular one can be used.

Okay, I missed the "or endorsing" part.  It still seems unnecessarily complex to be associated with the term "quick fix".  Besides, what if someone sees something that really, really needs a quick fix but can't think of exactly what that quick fix should be?  Since e can't provide a fix, and since at that point there's no fix to endorse, e can't officially say that such-and-such is something that needs fixing right away.

> Tampons and strippers...you really should change your philosophy to

> Carnal.

It's the scarf.  It...changes a man.

                                    Glotmorf

-----

The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.

http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/imt

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