My take on this debate is as follows:
If there was such thing defined by the rules as a "public reminder" and
"humiliating public reminder" was a subset of that, intended to be
humiliating, rather than just normal. But since there isn't that, it
doesn't seem like it actually is required to be humiliating. It's like
seeing Action Points and assuming they can be used for any action or
looking at shinies and assuming that, if they were a physical currency,
they would be shiny. In my mind, it's just reading too far into the name.
On 11/6/2017 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 06:03 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
How could I make it more humiliating without being rude?
Listing the players who could vote but failed to has been the
traditional way in the past. Sometimes they're even described as
"slackers" or the like; I don't know how that compares to your typical
standard of rudeness.
Gratuitous: Culture matters. Whenever I see the phrase "humiliating
public reminder" for something I haven't voted on, I feel ashamed.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
Trigon
