On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:48 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >> Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "Score", reading as follows: >> Score is a player switch, with default 0 and possible values all >> non-negative integers. > > Hmm... this would make Score momentarily defined by both this rule and > R2419; since everyone has a score that wouldn't be a possible value by > this definition, scores all go to default? Well, maybe only after > R2419 is amended if "a player's Score is a complex number" counts as a > conflict. A bit weird to leave that implicit.
This sounds like a fun oversight to resolve once the proposal is adopted. >> If any player has a score of at least 250, then any player who >> has at least as much score as any other player can make an >> announcement naming all players with the highest score and >> indicating that they have won Agora. > > This wording is somewhat odd, since anyone can make such an > announcement at any time. You know better than that. I used lower-case "can" and the announcement only succeeds platonically if it is correct. > >> reset to default. The beginning of a new game does not cause >> any changes to >> >> the game state not specified by the rules; in particular, Agora does >> not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. > > Paragraph break? Blargh, I thought I got them all. >> Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by appending: >> When a player deputises for an office, e becomes the holder of >> that office. > > Hmm, why not. > >> Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by >> a) deleting "or the office is Assumed" and >> b) deleting bullets 2) and 3) and renumbering that list accordingly > > Can we just get rid of elections unless we're actually going to do > something with them, like the constants-set-as-part-of-campaign > suggestion? (Wasn't that in the rules at some point?) > > I guess without elections, you'd be left with deposing people by > deputising for them, which might cause more rancor than necessary; on > the other hand, that sounds a little fun (similar to the old Pariah > mechanism). Pariah? >> Amend Rule 2138 (The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel) by >> a) deleting the words "and reports" and >> b) replacing bullet c) with: >> c) The date on which the most recent election for that office >> was initiated. > > Why do you want the IADoP to no longer track reports? Speaking for > myself, I usually don't notice when someone has stopped publishing > reports if I'm not particularly interested in their contents. > (Speaking of which, I have an IADoP report to publish...) I've been IADoP. Tracking reports was the worst part of the job by far (although it was worse due to the number of offices). At various points it was necessary as officers were platonically or pragmatically given rewards for completing their duties, or sometimes just their reports, on time. But right now it's not, and ais' deputies-take-office mechanism is an alternate way to punish non-reporting officers. >> Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. > > >> An Agoran decision with an adoption index has the following >> essential parameters: >> >> a) Its adoption index. >> b) Its author (and co-authors, if any). > > Just say proposal. Hysterical raisins. >> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgment) by >> a) inserting, between the second and third paragraphs, "The Arbitor is >> an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner >> that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora." > > What's the point? It's not like the Speaker has much else to do. > > Also, might want to remove > > The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > Figurehead. But yeah, will fix that in a followup, and will fix the fact that I also got rid of the Speaker's extra vote by accident. -scshunt
