Proposal: Ah! poor rule 2.3
Vetoed. - Qwazukee
Adminned at 07 Aug 2009 11:36:52 UTC
Replace all instances of 20 in the rule 2.3 Award Economics with 19 except for the instance in DICE20, which shall remain DICE20.
I don’t think this rule should fall into uselessness.
Comments
arthexis:
Qwazukee:
SingularByte:
I’d vote for but there’s no point since there won’t be a rule called award economics by the time this passes.
Pavitra:
SingularByte, 2.3 says it changes its text instead of getting repealed. Do you think that won’t work for some reason?
Qwazukee, the problem is that it gets iteratively, monotonically smaller. I can virtually guarantee that without amendment that 20 will be 1 by the time we get to Cameras and Groundhogs. There’s no way for the number ever to increase, and on average it gets cut in half with every change.
Qwazukee:
No, SB would be right except he’s off by a few days, I think.
I know it dwindles to nothing, but since it’s a freebie, that doesn’t bother me. Bill Murrays should have to earn their Icicles/Books/Groundhogs/whatever.
Pavitra:
Actually, I just ran a simulation and the randomness is a little more unpredictable than I first thought. Who woulda thunkit?
http://pastebin.org/7073
Nevertheless, my vote stands. (Unless it doesn’t? It occurs to me that I might not officially be a Bill Murray until an admin adds me to the GNDT.)
arthexis:
@everybody: I made the rule. I made it with specifically that intention (that its value would be lowered over time).
Qwazukee:
I was going to let it slide, but technically you need to revote on everything, I just added you.
Klisz:
Ienpw III:
Pavitra:
Yeah, okay,
.
SingularByte:
What I meant was that the rule called award economics would be renamed icicle economics. Since it’s been renamed since my last comment, this proposal would do nothing.
Qwazukee: