Arkady English wrote:
Add a rule titled "Rule Ownership" with the text:
"All rules, unless explicitly stated, are owned by The President."
I explicitly state that all rules are owned by me. Better yet, I
create a rule stating "All rules are owned by Murphy".
> "- Rules in conflict which are
> Add a rule titled "Rule Ownership" with the text:
> "All rules, unless explicitly stated, are owned by The President."
Perhaps something like "Rules are fixed assets whose recordkeepor is
. Every rule is, by default, owned by the President."
> Alter the text of rule 1030 to add this paragra
On 12 December 2011 07:46, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and
> Found department to myself.
>
> (This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist
> only because they're rules-defined (their backing document is rule 2141,
>
G. wrote:
It was pointed out at the time that just setting a person's power to a
number wasn't enough, one had to amend the ruleset to contain a use
mechanism (e.g. add "G. CAN do x by announcement"). I used the Rule
instead of my set power for the whole scam so that wasn't tested IIRC.
Makes
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Such as The President. Also, there was a scam a while back to
> >> assign positive power to a first-class player (I think G.); did
> >> that go through, and if so, did we reverse it?
> >
> > Yes, I had th
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Such as The President. Also, there was a scam a while back to
>> assign positive power to a first-class player (I think G.); did
>> that go through, and if so, did we reverse it?
>
> Yes, I had the arbitrary-changes-to-the-ruleset rule set my
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> > > It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by
> > > announcement.
> >
> > Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
>
> Such as The President. Also, there was
ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
Such as The President. Also, there was a scam a while back to
assign positive power to a first-class pl
ais523 wrote:
I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and
Found department to myself.
(This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist
only because they're rules-defined (their backing document is rule 2141,
incidentally). They can't be destroyed by
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:53 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 02:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > R105 takes precedence.
>
> I don't see that it conflicts. "Where permitted by other rules" -- 2166
> is a rule, so it can give permission -- ", an instrument generally can
> [...] repeal a rule." -- 21
On 12/12/2011 02:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:39, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 02:33 AM, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by
announcement.
>>>
>>> Only if that rule'
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:39, Pavitra wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 02:33 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>>> It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
>>
>> Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
>
> Nope. R2166 has positi
On 12/12/2011 02:33 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
>
> Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
Nope. R2166 has positive power. (paragraph 6)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
--
ais523
On 12/12/2011 01:52 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 07:46 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and
>> Found department to myself.
>>
>> (This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist
>> only because they're rul
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 07:46 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and
> Found department to myself.
>
> (This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist
> only because they're rules-defined (their backing document is rule 2
16 matches
Mail list logo
