Levi wrote:
At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who was
the only player to cast a valid vote for a given option on it
gains one Pink VC.
Not totally sure this is a good idea. I'd be voting FORx1 AGAINSTx1
PRESENTx1 on all Ordinary proposals, and the higher
Levi wrote:
Just noticed that Rule 2160 uses POSSIBLE.
If it's the reverse of IMPOSSIBLE, it would be defined the same as CAN.
But then, in Rule 2160, I'm not sure POSSIBLE is the right term?
There was a proposal to change it to LEGAL, whereupon it was pointed
out that many actions are LEGAL
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: VCs for voting
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by inserting this text at
some appropriate point:
At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who was
the only player to cast a valid vote for a given option on it
gain
Levi Stephen wrote:
Yes, good. My "clarify MMI" proposal had:
* MAY : it is PERMITTED for to .
* PERMITTED, LEGAL: it is not MANDATORY to not perform the
action.
* MANDATORY, REQUIRED: there is an obligation to perform the
action.
-zefram
Just notic
Yes, good. My "clarify MMI" proposal had:
* MAY : it is PERMITTED for to .
* PERMITTED, LEGAL: it is not MANDATORY to not perform the
action.
* MANDATORY, REQUIRED: there is an obligation to perform the
action.
-zefram
I sumbitted a proposal with the r
On 8/22/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm a fan of democracy. Not that it's the best form of government,
> > but we have yet to find anything better.
> .
>
> Democracy is boring. This is a game.
>
Hear! Hear!
BobTHJ
On 8/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a fan of democracy. Not that it's the best form of government,
> but we have yet to find anything better.
And those who insist on continuous democracy prevent us finding anything better.
> I'd be happy to have VLOP constant, but I fear that it
Zefram wrote:
(I think there is CFJ evidence that Jon is a person already)
CFJ 1700. Murphy wants to appeal it.
Not because I doubt the outcome, but because Judge Wooble didn't so
much as ask for Jon to send a message from eir own e-mail address.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
And what reason was that, then?
Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when
we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty
regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC,
when resolving C
proto-proposal: truthfulness in registration
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 869 by appending to the paragraph that describes how to
register the sentence
Any entity that CANNOT register MUST NOT make such an
announcement.
[This adds a R2149-like requirement for truthfulness in purported
regis
proto-proposal: empty throne
AI: 3
{{{
Retitle rule 103 to "Empty Throne" and amend it to read
The office of speaker is permanently vacant. There is no
obligation to attempt to fill it.
[This is the ultimate development of the speaker as non-executive head
of state. The speaker's
Levi Stephen wrote:
>Sorry, should have said worded, rather than defined. It's good that they
>are equivalent ;)
OK. I agree with you that the latter is a superior wording, because it's
more general when considering non-rule entities: I think a contract,
for example, should be able to use the MM
Zefram wrote:
Levi Stephen wrote:
MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rule in
question
But, MAY is probably better defined along the lines of
MAY: Performing the described action is permitted
These two definitions appear equivalent to me. That's what
Peekee wrote:
>There is probably a case from previous CFJs that multiple people can
>act as one player.
There was one case very early on where two humans (well, human as far
as we know) acted cooperatively as a single player. There were no
strict definitions in place at the time. Today we woul
Ed Murphy wrote:
>And what reason was that, then?
Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when
we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty
regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC,
when resolving CFJ 1684a, where we
Levi Stephen wrote:
>MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rule in
>question
>
>But, MAY is probably better defined along the lines of
>
>MAY: Performing the described action is permitted
These two definitions appear equivalent to me. That's what "permitted"
means
Levi Stephen wrote:
> The Registrar's report shall include the following:
>with:
> The Registrar's report SHOULD include the following:
Wrong interpretation of "shall". In this case "shall include" should
be translated to "includes". See rule 2143.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
a) Default Officeholder.
We repealed this for a good reason.
And what reason was that, then?
b) Default Justice.
This is a better way to handle a default justice than what we had before.
Why?
c) Wielder of Veto.
Undemocratic.
S
18 matches
Mail list logo
