[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 62 BALLOT (the real one)

[Bill Adlam <sagitta_elegans@xxxxxxxxx>]

Glotmorf voted: 

> > Proposal 1844/1: Legislative Veto (Sagitta)
> 
> Shelve.  While I agree with the idea that a proposal, if it's 
> thought to have merit by the playerbase but is killed by the 
> Administrator, should get some compensation for being killed, 
> I don't think said compensation should be so excessive that 
> it'd encourage the creation of proposals that people might 
> like that the Adinistrator wouldn't.

The only change I wanted to make here was to add an extra line of
defence against voting scams.  If you want to reduce the current level
of compensation for vetoes, go ahead and propose it.  I'll probably
vote in favour.

> > Proposal 1845/0: No Secret Kickbacks (Sagitta)
> 
> Shelve.  If yer gonna change the thing, and therefore break up 
> its existing cinquain structure, you might as well do a proper 
> job of it and rewrite it as complete sentences, rather than 
> make it harder to read in a form that doesn't justify it. 
> (BTW, since the 'one point' was in a comment, I don't think 
> it's considered part of the limerick.)

Ah yes, you're right in both cases (except for your minor error).

> > Proposal 1846/0: Player Is Created Free, But Everywhere E Is
> >                  In Chains (Sagitta)
> 
> No.
> 
> I must have missed the previous discussion cited in the 
> proposal.  It is not true that the last sentence of r1732.E 
> disenfranchises the first sentence; the first sentence serves 
> as a default case, much like the rule of the same name.  It 
> therefore has power to settle disputes if there is no other 
> rule that does so.

True, but it only has an effect on the game where the default case
doesn't apply.  (And that reminds me of something else that needs
fixing...)

It wasn't much of a discussion, but after proposing it back in nweek 54
I said it didn't do anything, and Wonko agreed.  You were the one who
objected to section E, actually, so I'd have expected you to be in
favour of removing it.
 
> As for the second change, I'd rather not have the potential 
> loophole or ambiguity of modifiability of things in possession 
> of a player in posession of another player.  If one is going 
> to allow for player possession at all, one must make explicit 
> whether possessing a player also means possessing everything 
> that player possesses.

I thought we had a rule somewhere that stated that no more than one
player could own the same object.  I can't find it, maybe it's been
bathwatered.  Or maybe it was something I proposed that failed.  Or,
having looked back a bit through the archives, I think it must be a
false memory.  But we should have something like that.
 
Sagitta


	
	
		
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss