comex wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Amend Rule 2186 (Victory) by replacing this text: >> >> Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined >> by rules. >> >> with this text: >> >> A Winning (Losing) Condition is a condition defined as such by >> the rules. > > > Confusing.
"Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined as such by the rules." >> and by replacing this text: >> >> This is the only way to win the game >> >> with this text: >> >> The game CANNOT otherwise be won > > Why? I was searching for every instance of " is " in the rules. I agree this one isn't all that big a deal. >> Amend Rule 2177 (The Senate) by replacing this text: >> >> The collection of Senators is the Senate. >> >> with this text: >> >> The Senate is the set of all Senators. >> > > Ugly. Hmm. How about adding to R754(2) that "X is known as Y" is generally interpreted as defining Y? That definition could probably just be removed; it's not used anywhere else in the rules. (The same rule later says "Senate supporters" and "Senate objections", both of which should technically say "Senator" instead.) >> Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by replacing this text: >> >> A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the >> subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is >> a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with >> power 2 or greater. >> >> with this text: >> >> A person is an entity defined as such by the rules. Defining an >> entity as a person is secured, with a power threshold of 2. A >> person CAN generally be the subject of rights and obligations >> under the rules. > > Why not 'defined as such by rules with power >= 2'? I considered generally defining "rule-secured", but that should really be a separate proposal. >> Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: >> >> A class of assets is public if its backing document is a rule or >> a public contract; otherwise it is private. >> >> with this text: >> >> A public class of assets is a class of assets whose backing >> document is a rule or a public contract. All others are private. > > Ugly. Another alternative is "A class of assets is either public (if ...) or private (otherwise)." >> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by replacing this text: >> >> A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its >> legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at >> least two, collectively, is a partnership. >> >> with this text: >> >> A partnership is a contract that devolves its legal obligations >> onto at least two of its parties. > > Why drop "collectively"? It's like "reckless" in older versions of Truthfulness; either explain what it means, or get rid of it so that people can clear-headedly fill the gap with something more sensible. (In this case, the explanation needed is whether a Corleone-style "some obligations are devolved to party A, others are devolved to party B" approach is valid.) >> Amend Rule 402 (Identity of the Speaker) by replacing "The Speaker is" >> with "The office of Speaker is held by". > > Why? Because "The Speaker is" is retained in R103, where it maintains parallelism with all the other "The <name of office> is an <optional modifier(s)> office" constructions. > I whole-heartedly agree with the unquoted changes (about half of the > proposal), but I think some of these changes reduce, not increase, > clarity. I'll probably split up the final proposal somewhat.
