[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Glotmorf votes

[Jake Eakle <jseakle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Proposal 2018/1: Witchcraft                               : Shelve
> The proposal doesn't say anything about integer values.  Do we really want to
> start working with probabilities of 1.05/6? (Yes, we can do this by shifting
> to the left of the decimal and rolling a 600-sided die, but that's just for
> level 2; at level 3 it's 1.1025, and I'd feel silly rolling a 60000-sider.)

I think the confusion here was about the mod operator (%). This gives the
remainder of the left term divided by the right term. Thus, when both terms
are integers, the result will also always be an integer.

> 
> Proposal 2021/0: Fixing Cinquains                         : Shelve
> It's not necessary to change the definition of a Cinquain, since the original
> text says the pattern can be repeated.  It's sufficient to say that the form
> bonus is multiplied by the number of times the pattern is used.  Much simpler,
> and the same text can then be applied to limericks.
> 
> But then, is a longer Cinquain necessarily a better Cinquain?
> 
I think people are missing the point here. The extra bonus for longer ones
was a small addition on the side. The main point of this is that the
original rule said it had to be exactly five lines, _and_ that it could be
repeated, which was a contradiciton. And really, 3x (or whatever I wrote, if
that's not it) is not a lot of points. No one's gonna be writing a
twenty-verse Cinquain prop that will just get voted down when they could be
looking for loopholes to exploit. In fact, most likely no one is going to be
writing any Cinquains at all, ever (have any Cinquain props ever passed? If
so, how many?), but it's just nicer if the ruleset doesn't have
contradictions in it.

--Personman

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