Thursday, August 06, 2009

Proposal: Ah!  poor rule 2.3

Vetoed. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 07 Aug 2009 04:36:52 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.



08-06-2009 18:42:06 UTC



08-06-2009 18:44:04 UTC

against I don’t think it’s a huge deal, a low number is ok.


08-06-2009 19:09:15 UTC

I’d vote for but there’s no point since there won’t be a rule called award economics by the time this passes.  against


08-06-2009 22:31:23 UTC


SingularByte, 2.3 says it changes its text instead of getting repealed.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.


08-06-2009 22:47:28 UTC

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.


08-06-2009 22:49:48 UTC

Actually, I just ran a simulation and the randomness is a little more unpredictable than I first thought. Who woulda thunkit?

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.)


08-06-2009 23:04:34 UTC

@everybody: I made the rule. I made it with specifically that intention (that its value would be lowered over time).


08-06-2009 23:06:42 UTC

I was going to let it slide, but technically you need to revote on everything, I just added you.


08-06-2009 23:17:49 UTC

veto  veto  veto  veto  veto  veto  veto

Ienpw III:

08-07-2009 02:25:42 UTC

against, per arth


08-07-2009 03:18:12 UTC

Yeah, okay, against.


08-07-2009 08:03:37 UTC

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.


08-07-2009 11:36:23 UTC

veto Since the rule no longer exists as such.