I just wanted to mention how amused I am at the emoji getting mangled in new and exciting ways in the title.
天火狐 On 28 September 2017 at 23:02, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > Were Silly Proposals a game concept at that point? > > Gaelan > > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >>> From the archives (by memory): > >> > >> AN INSANE PROPOSAL IS A PROPOSAL IN ALL CAPS. > >> > >> VOTES FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL ARE SECRET AND CANNOT BE DISCUSSED, > >> EVEN IN PRIVATE. > >> > >> IF NOT A SINGLE FOR VOTE IS CAST FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL, THE > >> PROPOSERS WIN THE GAME. > > > > Good times. I created the first version of that, although I understand > people later rewrote it because they found it too unclear, not the least of > which because it was a Silly Proposal and so had to be in verse: > > > > ()()()() > > There exists an imbalance. To correct this inanity, > > This Rule is created, enTitled "Insanity": > > > > An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule > letter. > > (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not better.) > > > > For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended: > > there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been bended. > > Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor. > > The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and professor. > > > > And should it occur (due to greed or sin) > > that no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win. > > ()()()() > > > > (The "imbalance" refers to Sane Proposals, which iirc used > one-Player-one-vote at a time when it was otherwise easy to manipulate > voting strength.) > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > >
