Here's another draft. I've tweaked it to weaken the requirement by
adding "directly", so presumably the tricks people have been pulling
with hash-triggered pledges and the like will still work. I also upped
the power, to show that I'm increasing the power of a rule past 3.0. I
remain open to recomm
Maybe a solution would be to require that it be clear that any action's
performer is clear or else it does it does not occur, regardless of method.
On 06/14/2018 04:59 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I've considered that, but it's also problematic. There are message
> based actions which aren't taken b
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 7:04 AM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by appending
> >
> > "In order for an action to be taken by sending a message, the message
> > must include all information (such as the sender's identity) which is
>
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by appending
"In order for an action to be taken by sending a message, the message
must include all information (such as the sender's identity) which is not
generally available to players and is required to understand the game
I've considered that, but it's also problematic. There are message
based actions which aren't taken by announcement. For instance, voting
isn't a by announcement action, and neither is a Notice of Honor. Like
the other provisions toward the end of the paragraph (timing and
ordering), it doesn't bel
A way to stop the "overriding" may be to include "sender must be
clear" in the *definition* of by announcement rather than as an additional
property. It's awkward to say "you did that by announcement, but it failed
for reason B" and better to be able to say "you didn't do it by announcement
bec
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Change the power of Rule 478, "Fora", to 3.1.
> >
> > [I'm astonished that no one has thought to do this before now, given
> > that this rule contains conditions for ALL actions taken by sendin
Nvm, it doesn't need to.
~Corona
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Corona
wrote:
> AI needs to be 3.1
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Title: Anonymity Patch
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: G.
>>
>> Amend Rule 478, "For
On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 22:06 +0200, Corona wrote:
> AI needs to be 3.1
It doesn't, AI 3 can do anything. (Although a power-3 rule can't
/override/ a power-3.1 rule in the case of conflicts, it can /amend/
the power-3.1 rule to get rid of the conflict. On a similar basis, a
power-3 proposal can amen
AI needs to be 3.1
~Corona
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Title: Anonymity Patch
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G.
>
> Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by appending
>
> "In order for an action to be taken by sending a me
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Change the power of Rule 478, "Fora", to 3.1.
>
> [I'm astonished that no one has thought to do this before now, given
> that this rule contains conditions for ALL actions taken by sending messages
> to work.]
Unless there's a specific conflict, I do
Title: Anonymity Patch
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.
Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by appending
"In order for an action to be taken by sending a message, the message
must include all information (such as the sender's identity) which is not
generally available to players and is r
12 matches
Mail list logo
