Please do. You're apparently quite good at this. -Ais
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:03 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Okay, first off, I favor the CFJs that are inevitably about to start > > materializing regarding these changes. > > I might ominously mention that I haven't read all of the proposal. I'm not > as fond of reading large amounts of technical text as I used to be. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > > -Aris > > > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:43 PM Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> El...escribió? Anyway, this happens with everyone's first major > proposal. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:42 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> If we need to make a fix proposal someone else should do it because > >>> apparently everything I write has some kind of technical flaw that > causes > >>> everything to not work and also doesn't get caught until really late. > If > >>> I'm being honest, it's actually quite annoying. Here's my suggestion: > just > >>> sweep it under the rug because this is honestly the worst time for > >>> nitpicking. > >>> > >>> El 24 feb. 2018 18:37, "Aris Merchant" < > >>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> > >>> escribió: > >>> > >>>> Oh my. This is a nightmare, isn't it. Should we be RWOing something, > or > >>> do > >>>> we need to urgently pass a fix proposal? > >>>> > >>>> -Aris > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Oh, I forgot one thing I was going to say: Rule 105 has the > >>> restriction > >>>>> > >>>>> If the reenacting proposal provides new text for > >>> the > >>>>> rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as > did > >>>> the > >>>>> repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the > >>> rule > >>>> is > >>>>> null and void. > >>>>> > >>>>> This seems like a possible can of worms to me, with a need to judge > >>> the > >>>>> contents of every modified reenactment according to an unclear > >>>> definition. > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>> Ørjan. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text > >>>>>>>> reads, in full: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is written as if it were two rule changes, but doesn't specify > >>>> the > >>>>>>> original text before amendment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm interpreting this as failing because it is ambiguous as to the > >>> text > >>>>> of > >>>>>> the rule when created, and interpreting it as creating a rule with > >>> the > >>>>>> specified text is not a reasonable way to interpret it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> the text: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How many rule changes is this, and what is their order? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Per Rule 105, re-enactment is permitted to amend a rule. It does not > >>>>> allow > >>>>>> for retitling a rule as part of re-enactment. Therefore I'm treating > >>>> this > >>>>>> as failing as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> the text: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ditto. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ditto. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Replace all occurances of "shiny" and "shinies" in the ruleset > >>> with > >>>>>>>> "coin" and "coins" respectively in ascending numerical order. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rule 2166 seems to have too high power for this, although it might > >>>>>>> therefore be considered a bug that it mentions shinies at all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Indeed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Greetings, > >>>>>>> Ørjan. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
