Daniel Peter Lepage on Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:38:04 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> Triller's votes:
> Proposal 126/0: Classes already require a fix, eh?       : For
> Proposal 127/0: Random Removal of Rarely Required Rules  : Against
> This leaves the responsibilities regarding SORCs in Limbo.

Then by default it falls to the Ministry of Arcana.

> Proposal 128/0: Automatic Nweekly Time Stop              : For
> Proposal 129/0: Here's an insight, kind user.            : For
> Proposal 130/1: "Liar," said I as rail.        : For
> I can do without "able" for a nWeek.

Arguably, this prop allows us to use prefixes by themselves, causing the
problem it seems to want to prevent.

The problem is that it's not clear from the text of the rule whether
banning "prefixes not standing alone" means "you can't play prefixes that
aren't by themselves" or "you can't play prefixes that aren't also words

The first interpretation implies that as of right now, we can't use words
that have prefixes (like progress or proposal) but we can use prefixes
alone (like 'pro'). After the fix, it would then say that we cannot play
any word that is also a prefix (like 'pro' or 'able') but we can play
words containing them (like 'protangonistic').

Under the second intpretation, we can right now play anything that is a
word in and of itself (like 'able'), but we can't play prefixes that
aren't words (like 'geo' or 'ferro'). After the fix, it would then say
that we can play prefixes that aren't words (like 'geo'), but we can't
play prefixes that are (like 'able').

The second interpretation seems to be the one we've used so far, since
we've been allowing words like "university" and "doubtful"; I think I'd
prefer to assume that's the interpretation we're sticking with, and then
clarify the rule accordingly.

> Proposal 131/0: Plurality Rules Often Overlooked; So Are Little
> Singularities. : For
> Proposal 132/3: Miscellaneous Form Update                : For
> Proposal 133/0: The Return of Executive Tidiness         : For
> Proposal 134/0: Futzing Judiciously On Random Data       : For
> A majority of you voted to open this can of worms, so....

I voted to open this can of worms. I did not vote to feed them steroids
and give them automatic weapons.

> Proposal 135/0: Fixing Up/Simplifying Souls              : For
> Proposal 136/0: nobody elects to work on reaching konsensus : Against
> Proposal 137/0: Gibberish in Neutral                     : For
> Proposal 138/0: Much Masterful Manipulation of Motions   : For
> Proposal 139/0: Something Seriously Senatorial           : Against
> I don't like the idea of someone else being able to set my votes.

It's easy to avoid - just become a priest. Or don't give your soul away.
Or hire a priest to give you back your soul if for some reason you gave it
away. Or take the soul of the Necromancer voting for you, become a
Necromance yourself, and seize eir votes. I tried pretty hard to make sure
there were checks on the Necromancer's power.


spoon-discuss mailing list