G. wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
>>> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
>>> support?
>>>
>>> EMPTY THRONE
>>>
>> Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
>>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> I CFJ on: {{Goethe is the current Grand Poobah}}
>>
>> Er, I think CFJ 2610 already answered this one... -G.
>
> That only considers the eligibility o
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
>> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
>> support?
>>
>> EMPTY THRONE
>>
> Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
>
On one hand it's
> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
> support?
>
> EMPTY THRONE
>
Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
> Any office whose duties include being a dealer is a high-priority office.
Office priority has been repealed.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I CFJ on: {{Goethe is the current Grand Poobah}}
>
> Er, I think CFJ 2610 already answered this one... -G.
That only considers the eligibility of non-first-class players and I
believe there's som
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>
>>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more
>>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better
>>> way to decide than "this guy messed up fewer times in the past."
>>
>> A good g
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more
>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better
>> way to decide than "this guy messed up fewer times in the past."
>
> A good general policy, certainly. B
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I CFJ on: {{Goethe is the current Grand Poobah}}
Er, I think CFJ 2610 already answered this one... -G.
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> * if the deck's dealer is part of an Officer's duty, then,
>>during an election for that office but before the last
>>four days of the election's voting period, a candidate for
>>that office CAN make and publish a pledge expli
> * if the deck's dealer is part of an Officer's duty, then,
> during an election for that office but before the last
> four days of the election's voting period, a candidate for
> that office CAN make and publish a pledge explicitly,
> clearly,
> While several of you may disagree, may I suggest that removing caste is a
> separate-enough political issue that it deserves its own proposal?
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
I did, and will do so again (hopefully with bugs fixed) after the
implementation of cards.
I've edited out the bits of the proposal I think are unproblematic; here
are comments on the other bits.
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 12:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If a card class has a position, there is always exactly one such
> instance of the class in existence, and it CANNOT be eith
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 13:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> While several of you may disagree, may I suggest that removing caste is a
> separate-enough political issue that it deserves its own proposal?
>
Fair enough to me. Based on what I've seen so far I'll be voting for
your cards proposal even if it do
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Goethe's proposal, but I agree with ais523cards should
>> replace caste as well. I've secretly hated caste from the get-go -
>> it's too limiting.
I'm afraid I've always preferred a default hierarchy for voting that
looks like caste; makes medium-ter
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 13:12 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Also, while I agree with ais523 that there should be a maximum hand
> size (to keep from having to track hundreds of cards for inactive
> players) I think that hand size should be set much higher than eir
> proposal suggestedpaticularly if
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 19:35 +0100, C-walker wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
>>
>> I suggest repealing 2126 and creating a new rule in its place.
>> Oth
As I was finishing up the proposal I see comments have come in. I'll
look at them and based on ais523's comments assume I'll incorporate
some of those as per discussion.
Meanwhile, here's one worth looking at; note that by splitting up
cards into multiple decks there may be room for a few more
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 13:09, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:32, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> Er, here's the alternate one - currently just finishing up the card
>>> definitions.
>>> ais523, how do you want to proceed, pick on
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:32, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Er, here's the alternate one - currently just finishing up the card
>> definitions.
>> ais523, how do you want to proceed, pick one or merge?
>
> Probably best to pick yours, as it's more
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:35 PM,
C-walker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
>
> I suggest repealing 2126 and creating a new rule in its place.
> Otherwise I like it.
Against; 2126 is the old VC ru
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 19:35 +0100, C-walker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
>
> I suggest repealing 2126 and creating a new rule in its place.
> Otherwise I like it.
2126 has the highest revis
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
I suggest repealing 2126 and creating a new rule in its place.
Otherwise I like it.
--
C-walker
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Er, here's the alternate one - currently just finishing up the card
> definitions.
> ais523, how do you want to proceed, pick one or merge?
Probably best to pick yours, as it's more mature, and then merge in a
few features of mine. In p
Er, here's the alternate one - currently just finishing up the card
definitions.
ais523, how do you want to proceed, pick one or merge?
--
[Now with multiple decks!]
Create the following Rule, Cards, power 2:
C
Comments in this proto are shown with quote marks; they won't be part of
the final proposal, if we propose this one.
Protoproposal (AI 2, II 3):
Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
{{{
Cards are a class of assets, restricted to players, whose recordkeepor
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> Not a bad idea, but perhaps the crime should be waived if the
>> submitter withdraws the proposal from the pool before it is submitted
>> (in case of mistakes)?
>
> This could be
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Not a bad idea, but perhaps the crime should be waived if the
> submitter withdraws the proposal from the pool before it is submitted
> (in case of mistakes)?
This could be a mitigating factor in a judge finding NOT
GUILTY/UNAWARE or senten
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2614: FALSE
>>
>> Such a proposal is not part of the Janitor's duties (Rule 2247), despite
>> eir false claim, so it does not become Distributable upon entering the
>> Proposal Pool (Rule
29 matches
Mail list logo
