Re: [s-d] Refresh Prop, take 2

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:03 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Um, isn't it simple enough to say that the the only text that should
> be ignored is comment text?  I don't like the idea of an administrator
> deciding to ignore parts of my proposal.  [[no offense meant, Peter
> :)]]

Well, it's not really saying that it can be ignored. If your proposal  
says "I am the walrus", then somebody has to decide what that means.  
If we say that the proposals has to contain only gamestate changes  
and comment text, then we still have the problem that someone needs  
to decide whether a block like that counts, except that then it's a  
choice deciding whether to ignore your whole proposal or to try to  
treat the sentence as a change.

All I mean by this comment is that the admin should try to decide  
rationally what a proposal is saying in cases where it's unclear, and  
players can RFJ if they disagree with the admin's interpretation.

> "Difference between".  Maybe it's just beacuse I'm not a cobol
> programmer.  But I can never work out if that means STRENGTH = FOR -
> AGAINST or STRENGTH = AGAINST - FOR.  Does it actually define it
> either way?   I mean, sure, common sense.  But this is bnomic.


In mathematics, the difference between two numbers is generally  
assumed to mean the absolute difference between them, so Strength = | 
FOR - AGAINST|. You're right that that's not at all what I meant to  
have there.


On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
>
> gamestate ?
>
> game or gamstate ?

Yeah, that's inconsistent. I'll go with "gamestate".

> nitpicky: Proposal, Number and Player are not consistently  
> capitalized,
> maybe that's on purpose ?

No, it's because some of this I wrote myself and some of this I  
copied, and I didn't consistently update the capitalization. I'll fix  
that.

On Dec 19, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> This doesn't define a player as "owning" a proposal, just as being the
> Author of a proposal. I'd think you'd want to use that term in
> defining who can revise it as well.

Good point.


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