+iny ©at people

Veto of attempting to veto anything else in perpetuity except for the act of vetoing things in perpetuity, because vetoing things in perpetuity is an obvious abuse of the whole idea of vetoing.

if i'm clearly just going to veto every letter manually then it's just a timesaver

i like wheat's "we trust you" cube from the chat, can he post it here so i can second it

There is a problem with that time saver, it negates the whole thing where you can only veto one post between updates. So if two people happen to post a letter you could only veto one and that time saver does not take that fact into consideration.

if i'm clearly just going to veto every letter manually then it's just a timesaver

i like wheat's "we trust you" cube from the chat, can he post it here so i can second it

But what is the cube going to do if they don't know that we are ceasing direct communication? It's going to confuse the cats, and they will look to us to guide them. And then what will happen? No response, no words. Look at my analogy from before again. Would you like being left in the dark like that?

And I already brought the cube in using a create suggestion, read more closely and you'll see it. I also added a bit of clarity but that can be removed if we favor a more cryptic approach.

like hell am i gonna actually get us to stop directly communicating, i'll only ever be able to stymy it, so writing a letter about that myself would be both hypocritical and foolhardy

and yeah cube². it's punchier if it's just "we trust you" though, that's what i'm going with

There is a problem with that time saver, it negates the whole thing where you can only veto one post between updates. So if two people happen to post a letter you could only veto one and that time saver does not take that fact into consideration.

i didn't actually know i only had one veto per update cycle, thanks

nah, i dont think any of our bad decisions came from being able to say too much, though i do think that having a limit would be very amusing

Tube is Abstract TCP? Shouldn't he be...IP/TCP?


I also dislike communicating directly with the tiny cat people, it's much better to let them do their own thing with the items and come to their own conclusions without direct interference from us (because we totally suck at it and only make things worse for everyone).

So I'm double vetoing sending that letter, and give thumbs up to the cryptic cube.

Collective Gambit>>activate Twitter Rules
Each member of the collective only gets 140 characters to suggest things per update
(y/n)

yes

Collective Gambit>>activate Twitter Rules
Each member of the collective only gets 140 characters to suggest things per update
(y/n)

Agreeing to this limit

Collective Gambit>>activate Twitter Rules
Each member of the collective only gets 140 characters to suggest things per update
(y/n)

Yes.

Also, I'm not sure why some of us seem to think a weapons catalog is a good idea if we're trying to move away from the 'child soldiers' angle. That seems counter-intuitive.

Collective Gambit>>activate Twitter Rules
Each member of the collective only gets 140 characters to suggest things per update
(y/n)

Yes.

Also, I'm not sure why some of us seem to think a weapons catalog is a good idea if we're trying to move away from the 'child soldiers' angle. That seems counter-intuitive.

My idea was not to arm them, as we have done before by giving them guns and teaching them how to use them. My idea was to provide them the option of asking for a weapon of their volition, no prompting on our part. Simply a catalog of the options they have in the event they feel unsafe.

I'm only going to rationalize the final letter one last time. So please fully read this.
Our cats have grown accustomed to hearing from us. Having direct communication. To simply switch from all direct communication to a total lack of it will completely throw the cats off. It will only confuse them more.
They also prompted us with a few questions, which they expect answers to. That final letter wraps it up nicely and sets them up to begin working all on their own. It explains that we will be ceasing direct communication for their own good. You can't just cut off communication without an explanation, that is another action that will send is in the same direction that caused our loss of Fernando.

If we want to limit the number of things we create or teach we should just do that. The 140 character limit would hit in-depth suggestions like letters way harder than it would CREATE spam.

I suggest we instead limit ourselves to 5 CREATEs and 5 TEACHs per suggestion. (The number doesn't really matter, feel free to suggest a different one.)

Also, I support Vic's letter, because clear communication is essential to any healthy relationship.

If we want to limit the number of things we create or teach we should just do that. The 140 character limit would hit in-depth suggestions like letters way harder than it would CREATE spam.

I suggest we instead limit ourselves to 5 CREATEs and 5 TEACHs per suggestion. (The number doesn't really matter, feel free to suggest a different one.)

Also, I support Vic's letter, because clear communication is essential to any healthy relationship.

I am retracting my agreement with the character limit, this is a less restrictive and more logical option. We can also maintain the number of suggestions as we go. Raising and lowering the bar as we see fit.

I would like to suggest some changes to the numbers. I feel 2 CREATEs and 1 TEACH will be better.

I would also like to suggest limiting GIVEs to 2.

Said this in chat already, but I strongly disagree with the notion that sending letters is somehow a bad idea. Direct communication is a GOOD THING and the fact that we've found a way to do it is also a POSITIVE. Throwing away good things is dumb, and there's a pretty big gap between "making them independent" and "never talking directly to them again". Last I checked the latter is called estrangement, not independence..

Collective Gambit>>activate Twitter Rules
Each member of the collective only gets 140 characters to suggest things per update
(y/n)

I might be mostly lurking but I think this limit would help a lot with thinking things over instead of slamming all the chips on the table all the time.

If it doesn't work out there can just be a vote to get it lifted.

I would like to suggest some changes to the numbers. I feel 2 CREATEs and 1 TEACH will be better.

I would also like to suggest limiting GIVEs to 2.

I like this as well.

Also, your rationale on the weapons catalogue is sound. Maybe include a mention in the letter that it is there if they ever feel unsafe, rather than having us force weapons onto them.

i vote no on restricting how many of X action you can perform. i prefer making this into Grand Tweet

how about a compromise: for every character over 140 you use, you have to send kitet ten cents

Better idea: for every post you make, there's a chance you win a crate. If you pay a dollar for a key you can use it to open a crate to get a random set of 10 single-use letters you can use to lengthen your posts.

The 140 character limit would hit in-depth suggestions like letters way harder

Yes, that's the general idea. I've realized that long letters suck, and that the less direct communication with the TCPs we are in the better off they are.

To communicate under a limited system, we could hold a Q&A session not unlike the one we did before. It yields more in-depth attention to the problems the TCPs are having and the things they would like to know.

The fact that it turned out poorly last time speaks to our ignorance and incompetence more than any fault of the system being used.

i strongly disagree with limiting communication. letters aren't inherently bad, our attitude and lack of cohesiveness is what's been hurting us.

Alright then I know the perfect solution:

Create: app called ribbiter which primarily is used to show “ribbits” which are brief messages from Frog Crimes.

rib one out: “sup cats, this is probably easier than reading letters #ilu #crimetime2017”

Alright then I know the perfect solution:

Create: app called ribbiter which primarily is used to show “ribbits” which are brief messages from Frog Crimes.

rib one out: “sup cats, this is probably easier than reading letters #ilu #crimetime2017”

tbh this is honestly not a terrible idea assuming we can still prevent ridiculous nonsense from getting through.

Alright then I know the perfect solution:

Create: app called ribbiter which primarily is used to show “ribbits” which are brief messages from Frog Crimes.

rib one out: “sup cats, this is probably easier than reading letters #ilu #crimetime2017”

tbh this is honestly not a terrible idea assuming we can still prevent ridiculous nonsense from getting through.

I'm for it. Seems like it could go alright.