Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

You might even want to roll the preserved land fix into this. That's technically not a bug, but it's a big enough malfunction that I don't think it would be unreasonable to put it in the same proposal. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Aris Merchant

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

I also don't think you fixed the contract upkeep cost bug. -Aris On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I create the following proposal; keeping it in the Pool in case

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I create the following proposal; keeping it in the Pool in case of final > feedback. > > Title: PAoaM Patch > AI: 3 > Authors: Gaelan, Trigon > > — > In Rule 105 “Rule Changes,” replace "If the reenacting proposal provides

Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

Other things we need to do: Make Agora the auctioneer for Land Auctions. Remove the last paragraph of the Facilities rule and replace it with "Facilities always have the same owner as their parent land unit" or smth. Add a destruction clause to the Facilities rule. Also maybe a rank-down the

Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

This doesn’t need to be 3.1, just 3. Oops. > On Feb 28, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Title: PAoaM Patch > AI: 3.1 > > — > > Remove the sentence "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the > rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did

DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

Title: PAoaM Patch AI: 3.1 — Remove the sentence "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.” from Rule 105 “Rule Changes.” If rule 2599 is