DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: I submit this proposal: -- Proposal: Office Salary Fix Author: Henri Adoption Index: 1 Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL. -- Your proposals were broken all kinds of sideways and this is your fix? :/ -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: -- Proposal: Office Salary Fix Author: Henri Adoption Index: 1 Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL. -- This doesn't help, as SHALL does not imply CAN. (And don't just change it to CAN either :)
DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 7698-7710
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 02:45 +, omd wrote: Proposal 7701 (AI=2) by Henri Credits Replace every instance of the word points in the ruleset excluding the instances of the word points in Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) with credits. Fails due to lack of specified order. I must not understand this comment. Surely the problem wasn't that there was no specified order for the individual replacements? It would seem very odd to require such an order.
DIS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:55 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: -- Proposal: Office Salary Fix Author: Henri Adoption Index: 1 Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL. -- This doesn't help, as SHALL does not imply CAN. (And don't just change it to CAN either :) What if I changed it to CAN and SHALL? -Henri
DIS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: I submit this proposal: -- Proposal: Office Salary Fix Author: Henri Adoption Index: 1 Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL. -- Your proposals were broken all kinds of sideways and this is your fix? :/ -scshunt No, this fix only pertains to the Office Salary proposal. I will fix the other proposal later. -Henri
Re: DIS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: What if I changed it to CAN and SHALL? -Henri That would help. You would also need to change Scorekeeper though, to refer to the actual office (now renamed), and you should get rid of the reference to the nomination period, which no longer exists. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 7698-7710
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote: I must not understand this comment. Surely the problem wasn't that there was no specified order for the individual replacements? It would seem very odd to require such an order. Agora is nothing if not odd. Rule 105 states: Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. For sequential changes to be unambiguous, an order must be defined. In general, this isn't *just* a pointless conceptual game: it's possible for mixed pre- and post-replacement states to cause strange effects, depending on the rules involved, depending on the order. One might wonder why applying the replacements simultaneously is so bad, and whether it might indeed avoid any possibility of such effects without a discernible downside... but forbidding them is how the rules stand.
