On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 21:40, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Bleh.
>
> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
> harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
The new proposal is id
FWIW, the intention of my proposal was to handle broken rules better, not to
make this a legitimate method of tracking switches. Apologies if you already
understood that.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal
A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the offic
On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not
defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch
name]” that is r
4 matches
Mail list logo
