On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:20:07PM -0400, comex wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless
> > the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it
> > allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's n
comex wrote:
> A Protectorate is a person if and only
> if it is a player.
I think this (and the whole proposal) is a bad idea. As a mechanism
for creating more non-natural persons it's a mess. We already have a
possible route to protectorates registering: a B
On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good points, although I was hoping to skirt the hazy definition of a nomic
and a player of a nomic.
R2147 already relies on both, so you don't gain anything by doing so.
-root
On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless
> the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it
> allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership
> itself and because it screws up the recursiv
On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end
Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three
supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
supporter, cause a Protectorate
proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end
Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three
supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
supporter, cause a Protectorate to register, provided that no other
rule re
6 matches
Mail list logo
