Here’s a revised proto proposal for cleaning up dependent actions. I think it’s
markup compliant and addresses Gaelan’s comments. Any further comments?
Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3
Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”
Amend Rule 1728
On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements.
It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not
recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by
> Rule 2531 as of revision 3.
Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues.
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it
implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended
markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of
letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists.
We can either have different
Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for
example by Rule 2531 as of revision 3.
On 2/8/19 6:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine,
I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?
Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s
not a dealbreaker for me.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan
I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number
of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I
don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with
the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I
Ooh, I wonder if it would be useful to have a “referendum” mechanism for
non-binding* decisions. Maybe it’s overkill.
Gaelan
* Theresa Cannot’s opinion nonwithstanding
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Inline
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m
> required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
No worries from me! I think participation in someone else's fix
proposal counts.
I'm thinking the best
On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>>
>> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such.
>
> That would definitely
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to
> propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
>
>
Sorry! This wasn’t meant to interfere with that. I’ve been annoyed by the
formatting of this rule for a while,
Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m
required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 9:45 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
> identified. I also noticed
Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever
14 matches
Mail list logo
