Re: [s-d] [s-b] Voting + Some Game Actions

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 9, 2007 7:57 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You are entirely correct about the Proposal Numbers, Oracle. I did mean to
> speak of Proposal 212. Your Proposal 202, however, was not included because
> its effects pale beside the might of Proposal 212, by which they are
> engulfed mercilessly.
>
> That said, Oracle, I bid you to explain why you find my Consultations to be
> unworthy, and to explain how I may correct them to bring their worth to an
> acceptable level.

Partially because they were not phrased in the form of Questions.

Of course, I'm happy to admit that it was mostly because I'm not
afraid to abuse the power granted to me by the rules for the greater
good of maintaining the integrity of the democratic process.  It was
clearly not the will of the voters that the game cease to be called "B
Nomic" and if you can exploit one loophole in the Rules to try to
subvert that will I'm happy to exploit other loopholes to see that
it's not subverted.

> Note that the Rules do not bind me to submitting a single Consultation per
> declaration of invalidity.
>
> Also note that unless you explain your ZOTTING satisfactorily, I shall usurp
> your position as Minister of Questions. No doubt all Players will agree that
> these Consultations must be seen through.

True, but I'd say if I can't muster a second Objection from somewhere
then my intuition about the will of the Players is clearly wrong, and
I'd then welcome an Oracularity declaring that the game shall
henceforth no longer be called B Nomic and that we still have a
Membership Test defined even if it's not used.

-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss