Glotmorf on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:39:05 -0600 (CST)

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

[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] I'm baaack...

On 31 Mar 2004 at 23:17, Daniel Lepage wrote:

> To summarize my point, I'm saying that it should be the voters' job to
> fail bad props - if you don't want to see my proposal on the ballot
> again next nweek, then stop voting Shelve on it.

Yeah, well, people vote to shelve a prop on the premise that 
it'll be made better.  If no change is made to it, it's not 
better.  Personally I don't think it should even reappear once 
if it's not changed from the form it had when it was shelved, 
and certainly not three times in the case of your prop.  So 
why not make shelving a sort of discount coupon for the 
proposer, so that if e really wants to e can resubmit the prop 
at a cheaper rate?  Especially since, some nweek when I wasn't 
looking, the rate went up? :P

> Glotmorf said:
>  > 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.
> That's exactly why we have a Justice System - to decide what words
> like that mean. If you put your roster on your blog, then we can make
> a Call for Inquiry to determine whether or not you've actually
> fulfilled your duties and put it up in a sufficiently public place
> relative to the players. I would also consider it within the
> jurisdiction of the judge to decide the exact meaning of "available
> public display" in this context, and to decide that your wiki isn't
> sufficiently available to qualify.
>  Then we'd be legitimately able to call for a vote of No Confidence in
> you as Roster Minister, and you'd risk losing your job. So it's 
> definitely in your best interests, if you become Roster Minister, to
> put it somewhere where we all can get to (and know how to get to).

That weren't quite my point.  I agree that I should, if I were 
Roster Minister, put the roster in a place where it could be 
easily found, and a CFI is a good method for ruling whether I 
had done so.  My objection was to the tossing around of 
apparently key terms such as "available public display" 
unnecessarily, when (a) no (heh) reasonable effort is made to 
define them, and (b) there are perfectly adequate and defined 
terms that could be used instead (in this case, "forum").  
That's what the whole eclair thang was all about: say what you 
mean, and say what you meant.

Welcome back, BTW.  Good to see you.  The old timers are 
dropping like flies again.


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

spoon-discuss mailing list