Kerim Aydin wrote:
I would disagree
with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing
amendments,
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended.
On 3/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from
rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a
completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole
existing Agoran Contract into a rule and
Michael Slone wrote:
How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules?
The essential features of both are that they bind all players and can
only be created and amended by proposals. Anything that can be done
with an Agoran Contract can be done equivalently with a rule.
In any case, this
Zefram wrote:
(Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from
rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a
completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole
existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.)
In
Zefram wrote:
rule 104 is hereby repealed.
I wish you the best of luck, sir.
-G.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever
we play subgames, e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules,
If a subgame automatically involves all players then I reckon that's
not very sub. Subgames in which participation is optional can be
dealt
Zefram wrote:
If a subgame automatically involves all players then I reckon that's
not very sub. Subgames in which participation is optional can be
dealt with by contracts, of course.
It's sub in the sense that it's a reasonble modular and separable
part of the game, but integral to
Zefram wrote:
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended.
Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't
involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment
Goethe wrote:
I'd suggest the following record for R105:
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445
Zefram wrote:
H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled
reorientation:
---
Amend rule 889 (The Clerk of the Courts) by deleting the text
The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following:
(i) Each Player's Orientation.
---
(Orientation isn't defined
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created,
amending had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the
instant before)
Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the
old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that was
Ed Murphy wrote:
But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still
exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly.
Ah, I didn't realise that that was what it was about.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
The database I'm working on in FLR format
Ah, cool. Please show me (privately) a sample of your data. I'd like
to see how to fit it together with what I'm doing.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
reference alert: is a Rule a
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Zefram 1 1 0
I should have a VC for delivering judgement, and I expect several other
players should too. Since 2007-01-22, R2126 includes:
A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period
gains one VC. A
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges
includes turning:
As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the
Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to
replace em.
clause (iv) of R911:
iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ
Goethe wrote:
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges
includes turning:
As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the
Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to
replace em.
clause (iv) of R911:
iv) E is ineligible to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Can you point me to these motions? -Goethe
|Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
|Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:07:37 +
|...
|So let's try out another loophole: I hereby submit a Motion on CFJ 1610
|to Judge it FALSE. I also hereby
18 matches
Mail list logo
