> just sweep it under the rug I disagree with that a lot, but we can just play as if it wasn't a deal and then propose to have our pretending to become what shapes the gamestate + corrections.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:42 AM, 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 repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule 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. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
