Ed Murphy wrote:
> Each Winning Condition should have a title, a trigger (defining
I'm OK with the formalised structure.
> * Trigger: A judicial finding that the possibility or
> legality of an action (actual or hypothetical, but not
> arising from that case itself) is UNDECIDABLE.
Too broad; "possibility" should be limited to rule-defined actions,
as it currently is.
> * Cleanup procedure: Each player's VVLOP and EVLOP is set to
> eir BVLOP.
Yuck, this breaks the weekly VLOP cycle. Better to amend the trigger
to include "... and no one has previously won in this manner earlier in
the same week".
> * Trigger: A player spending one VC of each color mentioned
> in this rule. (E may do so.)
This could be interpreted as triggering on em spending the VCs for
other purposes. How about:
z) A player may spend one VC of each VC color specifically
mentioned in this rule to poop a rainbow. If there are at
least six different specific VC colors mentioned in this
rule, then the following win condition exists:
...
* Trigger: A player poops a rainbow.
> * Trigger: A correct announcement that at least one player's
> score is at least 100, specifying all such players.
I'd prefer that such announcements only cause a win if they specifically
say that they are causing a win. Otherwise officer reports could
be argued to cause these wins. This problem occurs with othe win
conditions too.
> * Cleanup procedure: The relevant clause of the proposal does
> not take effect directly, but indirectly by triggering this
> Winning Condition.
I can't interpret this as a cleanup procedure. It seems to be a statement
about the linkage between the proposal and the win condition.
> * Trigger: Awarding a win to one or more persons on behalf of
> Agora.
I'm opposed to allowing this. Leave winning as an internal matter only.
-zefram
