On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > - A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of
> > positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down)
> > for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of all
> > the positions between the indicated player's starting and
> > ending positions, inclusive.
> Makes moves far too difficult. I was going to propose something involving the
> voting difference between them or something. I need to work that out exactly.
How about the above scheme divided by 2?
> > Position: The Grand Vizier CAN perform any action that an officer
> > both CAN and MAY (or SHALL) perform by virtue of holding that
> > office as follows:
> > (a) If the rules specify that the officer CAN perform the
> > action in question by announcement, then the Grand Vizier CAN
> > perform that action With Notice, indicating also that e is
> > acting as Vizier;
> > (b) If the rules specify a dependent action method for the
> > officer performing the action, then the Grand Vizier CAN perform
> > the action using the same dependent action method, indicating
> > also that e is acting as Vizier.
> > (c) If a player becomes the Grand Vizier; no notices of intent
> > posted by the previous Vizier, or posted by the new Vizier prior
> > to becoming Vizier, CAN be used to resolve dependent actions
> > described in (a) or (b), above.
>
> I greatly oppose (c). For starters, I'm not sure how it works with precedence;
> secondly, it makes the Vizier useless if it changes more than once every 4
> days.
Ok, I pondered whether (c) was a good idea or not and am happy to drop it.
> Also, (b) should still require notice.
So Support can't be faster, right? Check.
> Oh, also, CFJ: {Posting an intent to perform a dependent action is itself an
> action.}
>
> > Amend Rule 2212 (Judicial Declarations) to read:
>
> Separate proposal please.
Need to fix something here or the list isn't stable... Less intrusive patch
idea?
-G.
