On 5/25/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a rule states that a Magnate pays a specified type and amount of > property, then that property is transferred to the designated receiving > Magnate instantly (if possible) upon that requirement taking effect. Ick. My apologies for not having commented until now, but if Agora has taught me anything, it's that platonic property transfers are a Bad Thing (also that "I say I do, therefore I do" is a fallacy, but that's not apropos). The weekly percentage-based tax levies seem a particularly pernicious instance; whenever an error is detected, all the affected Magnates' levies in the intervening period of time will have to be reassessed as well.
If a provision were added to pardon errors that appear on the Secretary's weekly report if they go unnoticed for a week following that report, would that be satisfactory? At the most you would be looking at unrolling 2 weeks of history then (one week during the report, and a second week for errors to be noticed).
A Player who performs one of the following actions without being certified > for that action has er Voting Limit on Ordinary Proposals reduced by two (to > a minimum of 0): > * Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals > * Supporting or opposing a dependent action > * Submitting a proposal for distribution Methinks that the main effect of this, especially in conjunction with R2142, is that half the players' VLOPs will drop to 0, and all the interesting proposals will be democratic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if history is any indication, I suspect that the certification mechanism will see little use.
We'll see. If it does end up becoming useless it can either be fixed or repealed.
After an Ordinary Proposal is distributed, but before voting ends, any > Player may destroy digits e controls corresponding to the digits in the > number of that proposal by announcement. This has the effect of increasing > eir Voting Limit on that Proposal by two. This action may be performed > multiple times by the same Player for the same Proposal. > When a Judge issues a judgment on a CFJ, e may (once per CFJ) destroy digits > e controls corresponding to the digits in the number of the CFJ. If e does, > the Agoran Treasury pays em $1000. > As soon as possible after a new rule is added to the ruleset, a Player may > (once per rule) destroy digits e controls corresponding to the digits in the > number of that new rule. If e does, e gains 1 VC. Is the intent that the player must destroy a digit corresponding to *each* digit in the number of the proposal, CFJ, or rule? If so, I'm not sure that this requirement is conveyed.
Thanks, I'll fix that.
An Equation Factory is a type of Land. An Equation factory consists of a > mathematical equation containing three variables (represented by the capital > letters X, Y, and Z). An Equation Factory's equation is determined at the > time it is created and it may not be changed. At any time, the owner of an > Equation Factory, if e holds an Equator's License, may use any three digits > e owns to 'Process Equations' by announcement: > 1. E substitutes those digits into the equation in place of the Variables. > 2. E solves the equation to obtain a result between 0 and 99 inclusive. > 3. The original digits are destroyed and e receives two newly created > digits, one for each digit in the resulting number (adding a leading zero if > needed to obtain a two digit number) > If, when solved, an equation produces a number that is not in the range of 0 > to 99 that Equation Factory is destroyed. I don't get this. If all of the variables have been instantiated, then there is nothing to solve for. My guess is that you mean "expression", not "equation". Also, what happens if the result is not an integer?
I knew equation wasn't the right term, but for the life of me I couldn't think of the correct one. It's been too long since I took a math class. -root BobTHJ
