Kerim Aydin wrote:
>As per my last post, has it occurred to anyone that limiting VC
>gains to ordinary proposals, which then can increase the ability
>to pass ordinary proposals without bounds, is a *tad* too much
>positive feedback to call the current system functional?
Yeah, I've been pondering
root wrote:
> Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it by
> replacing the text "1.1" with "2".
As per my last post, has it occurred to anyone that limiting VC
gains to ordinary proposals, which then can increase the ability
to pass ordinary proposals without bounds, is a *tad* too muc
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I'd suggest revisiting the
>langauge of R1688 altogether. Maybe turn the noun (objects with
>power = "instruments") to verbs (actions with power = "commands").
I see a potentially neat way of doing this. We could enumerate explicitly
the ty
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Yes, this was the subject of Andre's Thesis, and my unfinished thesis
>(unfinished because my committee chair pointed out that Andre had
>written it first!) This was the recommendation of both theses, IIRC.
Ah, cool. Must be a good idea then.
A while ago I started drafting a
Zefram wrote:
> No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> stipulate any other means of determining precedence between Rules of
> equal Power. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
> of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
> any
5 matches
Mail list logo
