Glotmorf on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:49:13 -0600 (CST)

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

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

On 28 Mar 2004 at 12:30, SkArcher wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 06:39:19 -0500, Glotmorf <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2004 at 12:19, SkArcher wrote:
> >
> >> Can I have a version with less flying spittle please?
> >
> > Sorry...the lisp goes with the scarf.
> >
> > What I said was..."if someone beats a lame horse over three
> > nweeks, should e be penalized for a failure?  So that, not
> > only does he have to want to resubmit it, he also has to make
> > it better?"
> >
> > In other words, if someone is gonna stick the same tired old
> > proposal in my face for three nweeks, without making it good
> > enough for me to actually want to vote for it, I want em to
> > get slapped with the failure penalty, so that e's induced to
> > do more with a shelved-prop slot than annoy me.
> >
> > 						Glotmorf
> I see. Unfortuanately other people have voted against the prop on the
> grounds that is too harsh in it's penalties for resubmitting props, as
> it requires Bandwidth to do so (which is a penalty). Diplomacy being
> the art of displeasing everyone equally, it would appear that this is
> never going to get passed.

Yeah, I'm disappointed about that.  I would prefer a 
requirement for explicit resubmission (even if for free) 
rather than an automatic carryover.  Wasn't it Wonko's voting 
prop that got shelved twice, then passed, without a single 
change made to it?


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

spoon-discuss mailing list