But messes are more fun...
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
> known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
> this is no so such thing. Implicit doctr
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
> > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
> > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
> > rules. I admit this could
Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
> the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
> attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
> change the
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris M
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
rules. I admit this could be made more explicit.
Without defining "game-defined", arguably
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
> It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
> incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
> game-defined if and only if it is a regulated act
Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
opposed to such an explicit pr
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help
There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in
the new Ruleset, please?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
>
> Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
>
> Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
>
> 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
>
> the following:
>
> For gam
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous".
> Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only
> do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of
> seve
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations.
>
It is kept, in its original form as part of 2464.
I haven't seen any sign of it making interesting gameplay thusfar: I
would vote to repeal (unless a use is found for them, such as in the
new contract proposal). Having said that: I agree with Aris. There has
been no sign of them being especially dangerous, or any more dangerous
than real legal sys
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Decided to put my money where my mouth is.
>
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule 2493 (Regulations).
> Repeal Rule 2494 (The Regkeepor).
> Amend Rule 2464 (Tournaments) to read as follows:
> A Tournament is a sub-game of A
Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Decided to put my money where my mouth is.
>
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule
16 matches
Mail list logo
