|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-24-10
 | | OhioChessFan: It is not your turn now. We didn't agree that you were allowed to withdraw an improperly proffered motion, so you have forfeited your turn. |
 |
May-24-10
 | | AgentRgent: <al wazir: <AgentRgent>: What do you think the time limits should be? Or are you against any time limit?> I'm against limits based strictly on time. Each persons voting power shouldn't be based on his/her ability to log on frequently. <OhioChessFan: It is not your turn now. We didn't agree that you were allowed to withdraw an improperly proffered motion, so you have forfeited your turn.> The rules also offer no penalties for improper proposals, they are simply void. |
|
May-24-10
| | OhioChessFan: I think declaring a proposal void is a penalty. We didn't agree to that as the only penalty. |
|
May-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: Ok, I will give in and vote yes on <aw> proposal. |
|
May-25-10
 | | al wazir: <OCF>: OK, that's three "yes" votes. Time limits are now in effect. It's your turn at bat. These are the rules of LEX:
1. Any number can play.
2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.
3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule. 4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants. 5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed. It is now 7:59 pm EDT, 5/25/10. |
|
May-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: I propose that in the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4 |
|
May-25-10
| | al wazir: <OCF>: You're discussing chess??? What do you think this is, a workshop in opening theory? This forum is about political POWER. But maybe it's a good idea to at least go through the motions of adhering to <CG>'s guidelines. I'm not averse to 1. c4 -- I play it myself sometime -- but for the record, why are you proposing this? Since no one has been elected Chairman (yet), we all have equal rights. Aside from voting on new rules and proposing them, I can only make suggestions. From now on, I'm going to time-stamp any proposal I make and any vote I cast. I suggest that the rest of you do the same. If you (<OCF>) had time-stamped your deciding vote on my proposal, we would know when your 24 hours expire. As it is, you didn't keep us waiting very long, so the issue is moot this time. |
|
May-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <aw> because I had no idea what the point of this was, I decided to offer an innocuous suggestion and take my cue from others who followed. |
|
| May-25-10 | | SamAtoms1980: 6:57 p.m. PDT
I would vote for 1.c4, but only if the plan is to play a so-called "White Dragon", following up with 2.Nc3, g3, Bg2, d3, etc. As there are only 5 of us, it's highly unlikely that we could swing a vote of what would be several hundred on move 1 of The World vs. the Next GM, but.... Oh, what the heck. I vote "Yes." |
|
May-25-10
| | al wazir: We're on the honor system here. We're doubly anonymous -- not only are we cloaked in our pseudonyms, but when we play World vs. GM, no one can tell what move each of us votes for. I know that all of you are as honest and trustworthy as I am myself, but what if some troll joins the game later on? What force will this rule have? How can it be binding on everyone? I don't have any objection to forming a 1.c4 party; this is just a practical question. |
|
May-26-10
| | al wazir: I guess <OCF>'s rule is in now force -- though I don't see how it alters anyone's behavior until the next World vs. GM match. Who's next, <SamAtoms1980>? It is now 7:49 pm, EDT. |
|
| May-26-10 | | SamAtoms1980: 5:03 p.m. PDT
OK. I propose that starting the round after next, whoever's turn it is to make the proposal gets a vote that counts for one more than than it did on the round before. The voting weights for all others voting on the proposal remain at 1. That is to say, if this proposal passes, then the next round, when it is <Shams>'s turn to propose, the voting will be normal. Then the round after, when it is <AgentRgent>'s turn, his vote will count for double, and all other votes will have regular weight. Then the round after that, when it is <al wazir>'s turn, his vote will count for triple, and all others will have regular weight... etc. |
|
May-26-10
| | AgentRgent: <SamAtoms1980:> After a quick check of the math, it looks like your proposal would give you absolute power in a mere 5 days... nice try... NO! ;-) |
|
May-26-10
| | OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk? |
|
May-27-10
| | al wazir: <OCF>: You're beginning to get the idea. <AgentRgent> and <SamAtoms1980>: You too. I vote "no."
It is now 1:43 pm, EDT. |
|
May-27-10
 | | Shams: "No."
Wait, let me put a finer point on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbR... |
|
| May-27-10 | | SamAtoms1980: <OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?> Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all. Though my attempt was crude and very thinly veiled, I thought there was a slim chance that it just might work. However, the much larger chance that it would flop was the reality. |
|
May-28-10
| | al wazir: Who's next? <Shams>? Go for it. It is now 1:04 am, EDT. |
|
May-28-10
| | Shams: It is my opinion that nothing will happen unless circumstances force our cooperation. Let's not forget, among the exigencies that compelled the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Colonies couldn't even get their act together to raise money to fight the damn British. People are simply far more afraid of being taken advantage of than they are hopeful of attaining non-zero sum cooperation. I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats. Rep. Shams |
|
May-28-10
| | al wazir: <Shams> (or should I address you as <Rep. Shams>?): Is that a rule you are proposing? If not, you have lost your turn and <AgentRgent> is coming up to bat. These are the rules of LEX:
1. Any number can play.
2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.
3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule. 4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants. 5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed. 6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4. It is now 3:35 pm, EDT. |
|
May-28-10
| | al wazir: Whether what <Shams> has proposed is a rule or not, it conflicts with rule #5. If we were to adopt it, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I'm afraid I have to vote "no." |
|
May-28-10
| | OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes. |
|
May-29-10
| | AgentRgent: I vote Yes |
|
| May-29-10 | | SamAtoms1980: I vote "no." |
|
May-29-10
| | Shams: WA State Open this weekend. I'll probably just pop in here once or twice and vote yes on whatever absurdities you all are proposing. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
? 25. f4 Qh3 (25...Nxf1 26. Kxf1; 25...Rg8+ 26. Kxh2) 26. Qh5 Qxf1+ 27. Kxh2. Now what?
-- but then I would have missed out on the attack along the g-file.
