a quick question on this topic:
Are bows a weapon catagory for warrior? They are not listed as such - but
this seems a bit odd to me.
Also do we now have a character tribunal? Who are these people?
Cheers Hamish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <errolc@tranzlink.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Char Gen Stat Points and 5 point limit on raising them
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 4:26 p.m.
> >
> > I thought this was fairly clear.
> > He explicity states that what he proposes is less elegant and
> > more complex.
>
> And presumably, in his opinion, does a better job of addressing the issue.
> Everyone getting the same total (or even the same individual) starting
stats
> would be even simpler.
>
>
> > He also explicity states that he is voting against because
> > there aren't any
> > other proposals. Not because of anything to do with the
> > merits of the proposed
> > solution nor the validity of the proposed problem.
> >
> > I am happy to hear alternative proposals or to have the
> > merits of proposal questioned.
> >
> > If you think that it's too early to vote becuase there should
> > be more time to
> > consider alternatives than that's also fine. But immediately
> > contradicting
> > your own statement by voting just drives me insane - should
> > have seen my rant
> > this morning that I managed to delete in time.
> >
>
> "I WOULD vote"
>
> Makes a LOT of difference. The implication is that IF a vote was called
NOW,
> he would vote against it.
>
> It also seems to be a reaction to Andrew's proposed immediate
retrospective
> introduction.
>
> (I'd let Ian respond himself, put his comms are presumably a bit flaky
> currently)
>
> Chill, man
> Errol
>
> > btw How did Andrew get credit (or blame depending on point of
> > view) for my proposal?
> > My IP lawyers will be calling.
> >
> > >That's rather harsh, Stephen. He's just saying that it's too
> > early to vote
> >
> > >because other alternatives haven't been discussed. There's
> > nothing in what
> >
> > >Ian said that would indicate that he refuses to vote for it
> > in principle
> > >forever, or even in two weeks time.
> > >
> > >We should at least explore more complicated approaches to
> > see if they are
> > >worth the hassle IMO.
> > >
> > >Cheers
> > >Errol
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:30 p.m.
> > >>
> > >> So you're voting against the first proposed solution on
> > >> principal and then proposing
> > >> a more complicated one.
> > >>
> > >> WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
> > >>
> > >> It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5
> > >> years. And then we
> > >> end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current
> > >> when everyone was
> > >> sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> > >> >> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 5:18 p.m.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> These three steps would remove the need to record our
> > >> >> begining character point total - we have an ep pool, we pay
> > >> >> based on current stat total, and there is no 5 point
> > >> maximum increase.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the
> > >> job though.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I
> > >> >> do not beleive we have discussed other possible remedies.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> cheers Ian
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
|