Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Antonio submits p282

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Lepage wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 6:12 AM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Antonio has submitted a new Motion, p282.
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Motion 282/0: Antonio Also Amends Alliteration
> > A Proposal by Antonio
> > Last modified on nweek 99, nday 10
> >
> > Antonio Also Amends Alliteration
> >
> > in rule 3-9, paragraph 2.D Miscellaneous Form Proposals, remove the 
> > item starting with "The Title contains exclusively...".
> >
> > Create a new paragraph in the same rule that reads:
> > {{
> > Alliterative Proposal.
> > An Alliterative Proposal is a proposal which contains at least 5 words 
> > longer than three letters and in which all such words start with the 
> > same letter. This letter is known as the alliterative letter for that 
> > proposal.
> > When an alliterative proposal passes it's owner is awarded 3 GeneChips.
> > Additionally there is a bonus of 1 gc for each word in the proposal of 
> > two or less letters that starts with the alliterative letter, and a 
> > subtraction of 1 gc for every word that does not.
> > Words that are in comments do not count for the purpose of this 
> > paragraph.
> > }}
>
> It seems to me that this will almost never be used, because it simply 
> too difficult to ensure. It's mildly tricky to come up with *good* 
> alliterative titles; my policy is to vote against anything that has a 
> really stupid title which was obviously contorted to fit a form. It 
> would be next to impossible to have a proposal of reasonable length 
> wherein every word began with the same letter, especially given that 
> three one- or two-letter words without the same starting letter would 
> completely negate the bonus.
>
> I'd be more for this if it were changed so that either only the 
> sentences had to start with the same letter, or if the bonus were 
> increased **dramatically**, say 80 GC.

Hmm, maybe raise the limit to all 4+ letter words ? Starting sentences 
has already been done (yeah, by me, but still...), and giving an absurd 
bonus doesn't feel right.
I'm actually considering dropping this proposal outright

Suggestions ?

> Speaking of sentence-based restrictions, a question about your acronym 
> fixing prop: What happens in the case of "nested" sentences? For 
> example, a proposal might say:
> {{
> Add the following sentences to the bulleted list in rule X:
>  * No player may ever Distim a Dosh.
>  * Any player may gask the cobbic glaud unless e has the calbice.
> }}
>
> Is this three sentences, or one? The first one contains the other two, 
> so they could be looked at as part of it and thus not subject to your 
> acronym rules.

I'd say it's three, I'm unsure how to word it so to make it clear in the 
rules. Suggestions ?


--

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