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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 31, 2004, at 11:49 PM, Glotmorf wrote:

> 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

We've had props before that were shelved, and then passed unchanged the 
next nweek. My voting prop is a bad example, but we've had other props 
where, for example, someone thought there was a flaw in it because they 
misread something, or there was a flaw but only because of a bug in the 
rules that was fixed by another prop on the ballot; after the prop was 
read properly, or after the bug was fixed, there was no need to change 
the prop before passing it.
	If the rules state that such a prop gets removed automatically, then 
it'll happen regardless of whether or not it's justified; if we leave 
it to the voters, then it's up to them to decide which props deserve to 
be given another week and which props don't.

	I'm not sure what you mean by "the rate went up"... when did that 
happen, and how so?

> > 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.

I'm not sure "forum" is the right word for this... to be a forum, I 
believe all players need to be able not only to read it, but to write 
on it as well (hence why the website is not a forum). Perhaps a better 
idea would be to establish a definition of a "public display".

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

Because they're light enough that air resistance can be a serious 
impediment, I've never seen a fly fall particularly quickly compared 
to, say, an elephant. A better expression might be, "The old timers are 
dropping unlike flies again".

It's good to be back.

--
Wonko

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