lør. 11. mar. 2023 kl. 19:10 skrev Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On 3/10/23 18:14, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > THUSLY, with the title "The Crystal",
> > power=1.0 and the text vestigial:
> > {
> > This rule will assemblee
> > effects enumerable by three!
> >
> > One of which, you will find,
> > is that this rule must near-rhyme.
> >
> > The first of which is already done,
> > Now near-rhyme on new rules of power 1.
>
> Is this intended to create a binding obligation on anything?
>
How about if we add a line:
"An infraction of 9 if the author declines!"
> > Crystals are tracked by The Geologist,
> > of whom you shall not remiss!
>
> Definition of Geologist?
>
Change to:
"Crystals are tracked by The Geologist,
an office that now exists."
> > Crystals be in natural form, liquid assets,
> > and each have two secured natural integer switch facets.
> >
> > The first of which is size,
> > the default size is one, we'll surmise.
> > The second of which is identity,
> > a number which we have plenty.
>
> Potential Cretans issue: "natural" vs "number" have different meanings
> for switches.
>
Just change the second "number" to "natural" and this is fixed?
> Whenever a proposal amends or repeals a rule,
> > we must be sure to follow these two tools:
> > - If a crystal with an identity equal to the number of that rule exists,
> > the author of the proposal gets those remits!
> > Its size by 1 increased, so the crystal shant become deceased.
> > - Otherwise, for the author of the proposal a crystal granted
> > with the identity equal to the number of that rule, planted.
>
> Not clear if this has any effects. "We must" does not suggest the rule
> applies effects.
>
Not sure what you mean, must is covered under MMI, so, it would defy this
rule to not follow the tools? We can change it to MUST if that is what's
needed?
> What good would crystals be without any meaning that we see?
> > A player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying one or more
> > crystallized entities. Specifying zero would leave you quite sore!
> >
> > An entity can be considered crystallized
> > if it owns crystals with a total size
> > bigger than or equal to the number of
> > rules in the current ruleset, love.
> >
> > This can happen provided that no entity for sure
> > has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days demure.
>
> What is "This"?
>
Change the text to:
"A Shattering can happen provided that no entity for sure
has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days demure."
> > When the System is Shattered, the specified entities win the game.
> > If a shatter in this manner 4 or so days ago, now this rule is lame!
>
> Winning is defined only for persons.
>
Understood, will change to persons :)
> > When this rule is thusly shattered and lame, please,
> > anyone CAN repeal this rule by announcement, it'll put us at ease.
>
> This does nothing. Persons CANNOT repeal rules, even if a (power 1) rule
> says they can.
>
I'm stuck on this one, is it that persons are not players,
so it would need to say players can?
Persons can be players, but not vice versa,
so if a person is a player, they can repeal the rule,
so it should be fine?
--
> Janet Cobb
>
Officially adding you as coauthor. and also adding extra glitter because
this
is wild :)
--
4st
