I object to the quoted intent, as the Herald's most recent report is a
Weekly Report and therefore this intention fails to operate as intended.
Without objection, I intend to ratify the Herald's most recent monthly
report.
On 10/12/2018 04:17 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
That's rather silly.
Without objection, I intend to ratify the Herald's most recent report.
I submit and pend the following proposal:
title: Heraldic uncertainty
author: Trigon
ai: 1.5
Amend rule 649 by appending the following sentence to the first paragraph:
The Herald's monthly report is self-ratifying.
On 10/12/2018 03:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Amusingly, there was previously text that said winning was Secured,
which
would have implied that Instruments such as proposals (with the correct
power) would have worked. It was removed to make winning more permissive
for lower-powered rules. This was removed in Sept 2016, so maybe
winning-
by proposal hasn't worked since then!
On that note: Patent Titles don't automatically ratify. Someone deleted
the "last [manual] ratification" date from the Herald's Report so I don't
know how long ago any uncertainty there would go back.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
My reading is that Rule 106 does it: “if the outcome is ADOPTED, then
the
proposal in question is adopted, and _unless other rules prevent it from
taking effect_, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption
index, and then it takes effect.”
I don’t read 2449 as preventing it from taking effect: it says that a
player wins when the Rules so provide, and here I think the Rule is 106
through the proposal adoption. But I’m happy to self-move to reconsider,
especially if someone more learned in the Game than I am can point me to
any relevant CFJ precedent or game practice.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:05 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 17:00 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
CFJ judged TRUE: “At least one person won the game as a result
proposal 8097 taking effect.”
Is it even possible to win the game by proposal? I don't see that
victory method listed in the ruleset, and rule 2449 implies that a
victory has to be caused by a rule. I guess you could make the argument
that rule 106 does it.
(This is relevant because you'd think the rule for wins by legislation
would set out a clarity standard, like there is for rule changes, but
there isn't one, so there's no standard to consult.)
Given how often people have been coming up with "win right away"
proposal minigames, and how many of them have been voted for, backfired
and ended up with everyone winning, it'd arguably be for the good of
Agora to put limits on wins by proposal (or on large simultaneous wins
in general). Wins are rather cheapened when large proportions of the
playerbase can get them by accident.
--
ais523
--
Trigon
