On Sunday 09 December 2007 20:11:35 Iammars wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something about this proposal, but the only thing this
> appears to do is to make an arbitrary gamestate variable based on a private
> contract. I don't understand why I should vote to pass this.
Pure silliness, and overturning some precedent.
The Department of Mental Health is in the same train of thought.
>
> On Dec 9, 2007 9:17 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I create the following proposal:
> > "Elephants"
> > Create the following rule:
> > There are 5 elephants.
> > There is an elephant switch, known as Elephant Location; its valid
> > values are
> > North, South, East, West, and Over There (default). It is tracked
> > by the
> > Department of Mental Health.
> >
> > Upon adoption of this proposal: four elephants have their Elephant
> > Location
> > set to the cardinal directions.
> >
> > I create the following proposal:
> > "Hats"
> > Create the following rule:
> > There is a person switch, known as Hat-Wearing; its valid values
> > are Wearing
> > and Not Wearing (default). It is tracked by the Department of
> > Mental Health.
> > A person may toggle their Hat-Wearing by announcement; this is
> > "putting on"
> > or "taking off" a hat.
> >
> > Upon adoption of this proposal, Murphy puts on a hat.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----Iammars
> www.jmcteague.com
>
