ABOUT
FORUMS
New Here?

Hey folks, welcome to Spitball!, the world's first screenplay written by blog.You may want to read the posts in our about section, particularly our Statement of Purpose

Or, you can start on the first post and work your way through sequentially by using the 'suceeding' links above the post name.

Who?

There are two of us here: Kent M. Beeson (aka Urban Shockah) bio, and Martin McClellan (aka Burley Grymz) bio.

Speedy Synopsis

After fighting through 50 different story ideas, the boys have picked Time to Die as the script to write. They are now starting the writing process.

« preceeding (Re: Motion: Rules Addendum) | Main | succeeding (Re[3]: Motion: Rules Addendum) »

Re[2]: Motion: Rules Addendum

March 23, 2006 · by The Urban Shockah · Permalink · comment on this post in the forum · Category: Original Version, communiqués
REJECTED on technicality. I don't like the idea of placing an arbitrary number of posts to tabling, I'd rather it be in human hands. What if we get up to 20 on a post, but are really digging the exchange?

Excellent point, and one I should've realized. Although I'm 100% sure that a twenty post battle is just going 'round and 'round, there's always the chance that it isn't, and we should protect that possibility.

The other member can respond that the tabling exists with their approval or veto, but either way the tabling will continue.

I am confused here, however. If I table a battle, it's automatically tabled? And you can say you agree or disagree, but it gets tabled anyway? I think a battle should only be tabled with the agreement of both parties -- or is that what you're saying?

I'm also playing with the idea that if someone moves to table a battle, the other person may call for an immediate vote on the battle, but I'm not sure what I think about that yet.