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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 22, 2005, at 3.34 PM, eugman@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> The party line of HIP is as follows:
> Proposal 91/1: The Baron's Story, Chapter Two: Speeders Return (BvS)
> Proposal 96/0: We Recognize All, Capicse Kiddos? (BvS)
> We're for these. The first brings back Speeders, the second brings back
> the much-loved Default Case and thus makes this message legal.
>
> > Proposal 96/0: We Recognize All, Capicse Kiddos?        : For
> > This doesn't break the game because it doesn't permit anything that 
> > isn't
> > already permitted. It could be said to "permit" calvinball, inasmuch 
> > as anything
> > else that doesn't forbid it is implicitly permitting it; this doesn't 
> > change the
> > game at all. Go ahead, slap me with a herring. See if I care.
>
> Ok so I ge that it doesn't break the game but I am still unable to 
> grasp the usefulness of this prop.

One could argue that if only actions permitted by the rules are legal, 
then we can't use the wiki, because nothing in the ruleset mentions the 
wiki. One could also argue that I shouldn't be able to write this 
message - after all, where in the rules does it permit us to discuss?

This rule just makes it abundantly clear that if the rules don't talk 
about something at all, then the game doesn't care about it.

> Also why do we have people posting the party stance instead of of the 
> members of a party subscribing to the party page to be emailed the new 
> info? Why would I want to know what a differen't party supports?

The rules say " [[It is requested but not required that Party Chairs 
post their Party Line in a public forum.]]"

I took that as a sign that people wanted to know.

--
Wonko

If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing 
you have on your hands is a non-working cat.
   -- Douglas Adams

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