On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, woggle wrote:
> R101(iv) protects against insufficient notice, quite likely including tricks
> where an indirected-to thing is changed suddenly. But if you care about
> indirection, referencing text from an unambigiously specified promise is
> probably neither unclear nor una
On 4/15/13 8:46 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Also, you probably want it to be clearer how to count announcements of
>> intent.
>> E.g. how many of these would be legal? How many would be legal to resolve
>> twice?
>
> The intent of limiting to one/week is not to stop someone from making a l
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, woggle wrote:
> On 4/14/13 16:44 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Create the following Rule, Low-level Rules, power 0.5:
> >
> > A first-class Player CAN, without 3 objections, cause
> > this Rule to make a Rule Change to a Rul
On 4/14/13 16:44 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, Power to the People:
>
> I retract my proposal, Power to the People.
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, AI-1, "Low Power Games":
> ---
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A first-class Player CAN, without 3 objections, cause
> this Rule to make a Rule Change to a Rule with a Power
> less than 0.5. However, any announcements of intent
> to do so is null, void, and wholly without effect if
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > But in terms of explicit prohibitions, I don't see what in R2140
> > explicitly forbids rule modification below if the Rule is below
> > power 1 (remember, this presupposes that the Dictionary bug
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But in terms of explicit prohibitions, I don't see what in R2140
> explicitly forbids rule modification below if the Rule is below
> power 1 (remember, this presupposes that the Dictionary bug continues
> to exist that allows the creation of R
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Without the protection, wouldn't R105 allow them to make rules with
> > power 0.1 (then manipulate them?) Where's the power-1 CANNOT? (Maybe
> > I'm blanking on an obvious clause I should know abo
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Without the protection, wouldn't R105 allow them to make rules with
> power 0.1 (then manipulate them?) Where's the power-1 CANNOT? (Maybe
> I'm blanking on an obvious clause I should know about in another rule).
"Where permitted by other rul
> > As for the second paragraph of this rule, entities with power less
> > than 1 CANNOT make rule changes by any means under any circumstances
> > (although they can cause the rules to change themselves)
>
> Without the protection, wouldn't R105 allow them to make rules with
> power 0.1 (then mani
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Seems like a risky proposition. It would prohibit any non-instruments
> from altering any aspect of a player that "affects eir operation";
> given that players are not in-game entities, it's not obvious what
> these aspects are.
I wholly agree with all
Seems like a risky proposition. It would prohibit any non-instruments
from altering any aspect of a player that "affects eir operation";
given that players are not in-game entities, it's not obvious what
these aspects are. I suppose the most likely candidates for
"substantive aspects" of players ar
12 matches
Mail list logo
