Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Proposal: There is such a thing as being too thin

Passed 8-4.  Lets see…changes the first sentence…to the same first sentence.  ...Erm…wow.  Bad mistake. —Rodlen

Adminned at 29 May 2009 21:52:49 UTC

Change the first sentence of rule 2.11 from:

Each Contestant has a numerical statistic called “Looks”, tracked by the GNDT, which determines the relative attractiveness of the Contestant in regards to other Contestants. New Contestants and Unidling Contestants with no Looks shall set their Looks to 5.

to:

Each Contestant has a numerical statistic called “Looks”, tracked by the GNDT, which determines the relative attractiveness of the Contestant in regards to other Contestants. A Contestant’s Looks is always an integer from 0 to 20 inclusive; any action that would cause a Contestant’s Looks to exceed 20 instead causes that Contestant’s fame to decrease by 1. New Contestants and Unidling Contestants with no Looks shall set their Looks to 5.

It seems silly that continuing to work out can make people more attractive ad infinitum. In addition, being too attractive, or too obsessed with being attractive, can make the viewing public like a Character less.

posted by TAE at 27 May 2009 16:18:00 UTC Comments (18)

Comments

Klisz:

27-05-2009 18:32:05 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

27-05-2009 18:38:11 UTC

against

Bucky:

27-05-2009 18:48:50 UTC

against .  Decreasing Fame?  what?

Psychotipath:

27-05-2009 19:34:17 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

27-05-2009 19:56:50 UTC

for

Yoda:

27-05-2009 21:29:56 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

28-05-2009 00:38:24 UTC

for

arthexis: he/him

28-05-2009 00:54:19 UTC

for

Rodlen:

28-05-2009 03:51:10 UTC

against That’s one long sentence, with multiple periods in it!

delta:

28-05-2009 06:03:00 UTC

for The idea is weird. But it should be capped and it’s easy enough to not go over 20.

Rodlen:

28-05-2009 17:17:31 UTC

No, seriously, that isn’t one sentence.

“Change the first sentence of rule 2.11 from: “

This proposal won’t work.

TAE:

28-05-2009 19:14:18 UTC

I don’t see why that means the proposal won’t work.  It clearly identifies the text to be removed from the ruleset and that wihch is to be inserted in its stead.  The fact that I wrongly imply that the replacement text is a “sentence” (a term not defined in the ruleset) does not change the proposal’s effect.

Qwazukee:

28-05-2009 19:23:13 UTC

It just makes me sad that, eventually, we’ll all look the same. Reminds me of an episode of the Twilight Zone, actually.

Rodlen:

28-05-2009 19:23:36 UTC

And as “sentence” is not defined in the ruleset, we go with the standard English definition.

TAE:

28-05-2009 22:35:54 UTC

Rodlen, let me put my question differently.  What do you think this proposal does if it passes?  Do you think it is completely meaningless, or do you think that there is an alternative interpretation created by my error of writing “sentence” instead of “sentences” or “section”?

Rodlen:

28-05-2009 23:30:04 UTC

Well, because the first sentence is completely unchanged by the proposal, well…seems that nothing happens.

smith:

29-05-2009 02:31:01 UTC

against for selfish reasons

TAE:

29-05-2009 14:03:10 UTC

Rodlen: All I can say is that I disagree, and if this passes, I think we can assume that those who voted for it disagree as well.  Franky, given the reasons people have given for voting against it, it seems like they too believe this proposal will do something, it just happens to be something they don’t like.  You are absolutely right that I slipped up, and I am sorry about that, but I don’t think I need to re-propose this.