Ed Murphy wrote: > Each player has a State with one or more Districts, a Base, and > a Constituency.
These names are quite opaque as to the significance of the parameters, and the relationships that the names evoke don't match the behaviour of the concepts. Is it to be impossible to have zero Districts (EVLOP)? Your version of R2126 still allows VVLOP (Constituency) to go down to zero. > Each first-class player's Base is five. Any other player's Base > is zero. A player's Base CANNOT be modified. Is the change from four deliberate? > When a player registers, Would be better to say "When a player is registered,", in case we ever have a player registered by someone other than emself. Same goes for deregistration, generally: we have often (such as in the current R2126) had rules assuming that registration and deregistration are always voluntary. > The Assessor's report includes each player's Constituency and > number of Districts. There's no real need for the assessor to report VVLOP (Constituency) as well as EVLOP. VVLOP can only differ from EVLOP by events during the present week. > Sheqels ($) are a measure of each player's ability to > gerrymander the redistricting process. I'd prefer not to use the dollar sign for this, especially since it's not currency. > When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir $. There's the assumption of voluntary deregistration. I think it would be better to define that VCs (sheqels) CANNOT be possessed by non-players. That's in my "tighten definition of VCs" proposal; you're welcome to incorporate the fixes from there. > The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, > with a default and minimum value of 1.0. A proposal is initially > a House proposal if its adoption index is less than 2.0, a Senate > proposal otherwise. You dropped the bit about the submitter setting the AI. It would be bad to lose the ability to make AI>1 proposals. -zefram
