Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-28 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > >> I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my >> reading, this does not

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
I just want to make sure it works as intended since this is an important amendment. It's possible it does amend the rule but that just wasn't clear to me. -- Trigon On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:35 James Cook I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate > changes, and then,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the ruleset would contain the amended rule. But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the amendment itself? -- Trigon On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > don't think

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on its own.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Aris Merchant
It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread? -Aris On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my > reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't > intents still be broken? > > --