Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued
that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent
game state.
More accurately, I argued that a propo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:25:05PM +0100, Zefram wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
>
> I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
> that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
Zefram wrote:
> > I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
>
> Was it proportionate?
Only according to the current rules.
[/me ducks behind R1922(b)(last sentence).]
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
Was it proportionate?
-zefram
root wrote:
> We may be thinking of proposal 4495, "Repeal Ohm's Law"
> (http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4495). However,
> that proposal failed.
I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
-G.
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> > invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> > something more substantial).
>
> That's what I thought as we
Ian Kelly wrote:
>What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
the arbitrary scope of Orders (except Timing Orders), and I'd con
Murphy wrote:
> These are covered by Rule 1891 (Legislative Orders). This doesn't
> extend to attempts to impose requirements on all players, since
> Rule 1793 (Orders) requires Orders to have a single target.
Ah yes, by precedent (eg CFJs 1377, 1385), "Be it Hereby Resolved
that X is Y" is a le
root wrote:
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier pro
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as soon as
po
In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier proposal.
-root
Zefram wrote:
> Where is the Infraction of Invisibilitating defined?
Ah yes, you're right here. It was defined in Proposal 4513, but
as per R1503/5: "An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction
only if defined as such by the Rules." so this overrules the
extra-Rules definition of the Infr
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued
that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent
game state.
>R2056 seems pretty straightforward to me.
Where is the
Zefram wrote:
> Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
> govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
and (as per your(?) opinion in our earlier pineapple/turnip deeming debate)
there's no mechanism to undee
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Game custom is that such changes are effective.
There's an interesting case back in 1994 with proposal 861. It carried
the declaration "(Foreign Policy Directive)", rather than "(Creates
a Rule)", but it purported to award Point bonuses for certain actions
relating to foreign no
On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The blazon was given by proposal 4898, but not put in a rule, so that
proposal is probably ineffective in creating a lasting definition.
Game custom is that such changes are effective. They were even
outlawed at one point by Proposal 4513.
-root
proto-proposal: Agoran arms in a rule
AI: 1
{{{
GreyKnight, having devised the blazon contained within this proposal,
is a coauthor of this proposal.
Enact a rule titled "Agoran Arms" with text
The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:
Tierced palewise sable, argen
18 matches
Mail list logo
