Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rethinking

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yep, I agree with Geoffrey. I was shocked myself that it passed, especially
given that Hose's objection came so quick. That said, it's not THAT
overpowered considering the workaround Hose found. If you absolutely want a
proposal passed it can be submitted twice.

Billy Pilgrim


On 10/31/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced they do. I'm just shocked there wasn't a second
> objection to the hand grenade; it's not like the options for stopping
> overly powerful devices aren't there.  A measly 2 objections should be
> incredibly easy to muster against anything overly powerful, and even
> with a missed objection deadline 2 players can submit impossibly high
> bids if one of them is willing to take the penalty for failing to
> purchase the device.
>
> It's actually orders of magnitude easier to pass any arbitrarily
> abusive proposal than it is to create an abusive device.
>
> On Oct 31, 2007 8:52 AM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I propose:
> >
> > {{
> > __Hold on a sec__
> >
> > Repeal rules 3-12 and 3-14.
> >
> > [[Obviously these need to be thought out a bit more before we can use
> > them.]]
> >
> > }}
> >
> > --
> > Wonko
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey Spear
> http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss