|Daniel Lepage on Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:52:16 -0600 (CST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] I'm baaack...|
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