Ed Murphy wrote: > Sheqalim Typo?
> (S, sing. sheqel) are a measure of each player's > ability to gerrymander the redistricting process. I dislike the "are a measure of" wording. The important bit here is that they're items that players can possess, but describing them as "a measure" doesn't express that. > Each S has exactly one color (Gray if not otherwise > specified). Colour is specified for all VCs that currently exist and for all new VCs being created, and you don't change that for sheqelim. The "Gray" bootstrapping clause is irrelevant now. > The Assessor's report includes each player's S of each color. Better report each player's party too, now that that depends on the order in which sheqelim were gained as well as the numbers. By the way, "report includes each player's S" makes it sound like the sheqelim, notional objects, are information that can be published. Should really be "report includes the number of S of each color possessed by each player". > a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its author gains > Red S equal to the integer portion of the proposal's Bad wording again: "Red S equal to [some number]" makes it sound like individual S have numerical values. It is not the S itself that is equal to $mumble, it is the number of S being gained. > adoption index (minus the number of Red S e gained in this > way earlier in the same week), By dropping the "minimum of zero" clause you raise the possibility of a specified gain of a negative number of S being interpreted as a loss of S. > If the proposal received no AGAINST votes, > its author gains one Zinnwaldite S. I think this should be a separate list item. And why the aversion to primary colours? > b) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if > any) who held that office for the majority of that month > gains two Green S if it has a weekly report, or one Green S > if it only has a monthly report, Please restore the "... with a report" qualifier, or find another way to make it explicit that offices without reports get no salary. > deputized The deputisation rule spells this word with an "s". I don't particularly mind which spelling we use, but let's be consistent. > c) When a player submits a judgement on veracity or culpability, I wish you'd propose these small changes (this, minimum EVLOP, Zeitgeist) separately, so that we can choose them independent of each other and independent of the district terminology. > b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to deputization as > described above, e loses one Green S. What if the office has no salary? The current rule is clear regarding that case. > c) A player may spend two S of different colors to decrease > another player's state's planned districts by one. Not clear on whether planned districts can go to zero. Not helped by the duality (again) of treating "planned districts" both as objects and as a number. > d) A player may spend three S of different colors to decrease > another player's state's planned districts by ten percent. Can planned districts be non-integral? Surely half a district is just a smaller district, and you can't very well plan to do something that's categorically impossible. >Change the title of Rule 2142 to "Senate Procedure", and amend it to read: > > Any player may change a House proposal to a Senate proposal > during its voting period with 2 supporters. Contradicts your definition of "House proposal" and "Senate proposal", which are pure functions of AI. >Amend Rule 2019 (Speaker's Veto and Rubber Stamp) If P5138 is adopted then this rule will have a different title by this time. -zefram
