Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Proposal: Waiter, there’s a self-kill in my SOUP

Times out with 5 for and 3 against.—Wakukee

Adminned at 26 Nov 2009 23:47:06 UTC

Add the following to the end of Rule 2.5.1 “Basic Spells”:

The spell Melting Pot has “SOUP” as its Activation Sequence. Its Effect is “Choose two Apprentices. They Become Partners.”

Fail any pending proposals, other than this one, which would create a Spell with “SOUP” as an Activation Sequence.

Phew… added the clause at the bottom so that if this passes, NOI’s next proposal will autofail.

Comments

NoOneImportant:

11-24-2009 16:32:36 UTC

See, the problem I have with your wording is that it doesn’t explicitly deal with the former partners. If I choose Darth Cliche and Hix… who is Darknight’s partner?

NoOneImportant:

11-24-2009 16:37:34 UTC

Oh wait… is that actually covered in 2.8? I may be reading it wrong.

Qwazukee:

11-24-2009 16:39:00 UTC

for I think it is already covered, NoOne, but I’m not awfully concerned if there is a little redundancy in the ruleset too.

Hix:

11-24-2009 16:52:56 UTC

against This proposal might create a spell with an activation sequence the same as one proposed by someone else.

(In other words, you don’t account for the fact that the previous proposal might pass.  However unlikely that may be, you’re still improperly assuming)

NoOneImportant:

11-24-2009 16:58:19 UTC

against

I still think mine is better, as I cover more eventualities (such as making an Apprentice their own partner).

Klisz:

11-24-2009 17:22:31 UTC

@Hix: If that passes, I’ll self-kill this.

Hix:

11-24-2009 20:13:15 UTC

(Good luck with that; the timestamps are less than 2 minutes apart)

Bucky:

11-24-2009 21:54:25 UTC

for

Wakukee:

11-24-2009 22:22:58 UTC

You realize that there are phrases, which are even simplified in buttons by the italics and bold buttons, which deal with the “if one proposal passes, then this will be useless…” problem? Use them! against

Klisz:

11-24-2009 23:15:30 UTC

@Wak: I started writing this proposal before the other one was posted.

Darknight:

11-25-2009 00:10:09 UTC

against i say you two go into the irc and work together on this lol

Klisz:

11-25-2009 00:42:48 UTC

Hm. It only just now occurred to me that yesterday UTC (earlier today in my time zone) was the first anniversary of my joining.

NoOneImportant:

11-25-2009 01:06:05 UTC

Come on Darth… how about in celebration of your 1st anniversary, you self-kill this proposal. ;)

Klisz:

11-25-2009 01:46:44 UTC

Oh, ha ha ha. That is so very amusing indeed.

This sentence is definitely not sarcasm…

Josh:

11-25-2009 09:51:58 UTC

Heh, thinking about it - my sixth anniversary of BlogNomicing passed about a fortnight ago.

Darknight:

11-25-2009 09:58:37 UTC

Two yrs and a month(or two i forget) for me

Josh:

11-25-2009 15:28:07 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

11-25-2009 17:22:50 UTC

Never let it be said I’m not a team player… not that there are any teams… well, except for the new buddy system.

for.gif CoV

Klisz:

11-26-2009 04:44:32 UTC

@NoOneImportant: No official teams.

...not to imply that there could be any unofficial teams. That’s just ridiculous…

...there is no cabal…

There is no DDA! Anything anyone else tells you about this so-called “DDA” is a lie! A dirty rotten lie!

NoOneImportant:

11-26-2009 18:45:22 UTC

As it’s been open for more than 48 hours, I request Enactment for the Proposal.

Wakukee:

11-26-2009 23:45:36 UTC

You need not “make requests” for adminning. The admins will get to it when they see it, and if they are looking at that comments, then they know it needs to be adminned. It would be much more helpful to simply post he vote count to help the admin enacting the proposal.