DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa
On 24 January 2013 23:25, woggle wrote: > Having received no objections, I hereby set the Speed to Slow. Not so fast!
DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:26 PM, woggle wrote: > I intend without objection to set the Speed to Slow. I support. —Machiavelli, who downloaded Microsoft's keyboard layout editor in order to type that em dash
DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa, whoa
On 3 June 2011 01:17, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:05 PM, omd wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Sean Hunt >> wrote: 7070 3 Walker Re-jiggery >>> >>> AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely >>> breaks the game >> >> I change my vote on 7070 to AGAINST. > > I do the same. It doesn't make proposal enactment power 2, it makes the definition of proposals power 2. Each proposal would still be enacted by a power 3 rule so there is no problem here. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa, whoa
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-06-02 11:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Er, is there any actual reason it would break the game? Walker and I came > > to > > the conclusion that it didn't (during the proto stage) so I'd appreciate > > more > > than a knee-jerk "oh this might be broken" from schunt. -G. > > A rule that says "except as allowed by rules with power 3 or greater" would > cause a breakage here. Well, that's an arbitrary text that doesn't exist, it's always possible to make one of those that breaks things; But I see you mean in that this particular text: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies." should be in R106 not the new power-2 rule (thought it was in one draft). It actually doesn't *technically* break, in that R106 sets the proposal's power to 3 and then R1688 applies the CAN, but it means the quoted part of the rule above is useless at power-2. Not broken, but not useful. Fair enough. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa, whoa
On 11-06-02 11:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Er, is there any actual reason it would break the game? Walker and I came to the conclusion that it didn't (during the proto stage) so I'd appreciate more than a knee-jerk "oh this might be broken" from schunt. -G. A rule that says "except as allowed by rules with power 3 or greater" would cause a breakage here.
DIS: Re: BUS: Whoa, whoa
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:05 PM, omd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Sean Hunt > > wrote: > >>> 7070 3 Walker Re-jiggery > >> > >> AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely > >> breaks the game > > > > I change my vote on 7070 to AGAINST. > > I do the same. Er, is there any actual reason it would break the game? Walker and I came to the conclusion that it didn't (during the proto stage) so I'd appreciate more than a knee-jerk "oh this might be broken" from schunt. -G.
