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 wrote:
> Were Silly Proposals a game concept at that point?
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen 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.
>
>
