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

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:48, Jake Eakle wrote:

> 
> > 
> > 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.

Mod operator.  Right.  God, I've been out of practice programming way too long.  
Anyone want to executively clarify that, or shall I just shut up?

> > 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.

It's not a contradiction.  That it has to be five lines in length is part of the pattern that 
can be repeated (including, presumably, a title; that allows for subsection headers). 
So the status quo for the cinquain pattern is simpler and non-contradictory.  And I 
don't think you want a "nicer" ruleset badly enough for someone to rewrite the whole 
thing using symbolic logic to enforce a lack of contradictions.  That wouldn't be nice.

And you really, REALLY shouldn't say things like "No one's gonna be writing a 
twenty-verse Cinquain prop" unless you want to start seeing them.  Really.

-- Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/imt


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