Kerim Aydin | 1 Jun 06:45 2011

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073


On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
> > 7063 2   G.             Switcher Fixer Upper
> AGAINST
> > 7072 1.7 woggle         Judicial Rank is Dead
> AGAINST
> > 7073 3   woggle         Compression Artifact
> AGAINST

??? A points thing?

Benjamin Caplan | 2 Jun 00:07 2011
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote: 
> > 7068 2   Walker         Spending Points
> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
> destruction (but a general-purpose definition of "cost" that was
> careful about this could also be used by promises and would be pretty
> useful)f

Does the trailing 'f' mean anything?

omd | 2 Jun 03:06 2011
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
>> > 7063 2   G.             Switcher Fixer Upper
>> AGAINST
>> > 7072 1.7 woggle         Judicial Rank is Dead
>> AGAINST
>> > 7073 3   woggle         Compression Artifact
>> AGAINST
>
> ??? A points thing?

I vaguely dislike 7063 (in addition to the original rule) because
defining it as a switch seems like a lot of baggage for a one-off
gamestate quantity.  7072 and 7073 were just for fun.

omd | 2 Jun 03:07 2011
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Benjamin Caplan
<celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
>> > 7068 2   Walker         Spending Points
>> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
>> destruction (but a general-purpose definition of "cost" that was
>> careful about this could also be used by promises and would be pretty
>> useful)f
>
> Does the trailing 'f' mean anything?

It means "I retract that vote and vote FOR".

Elliott Hird | 2 Jun 13:36 2011

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
> breaks the game

Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.

ais523 | 2 Jun 13:41 2011
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:36 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
> > breaks the game
> 
> Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.

AIAN isn't massively effective, though; although it prevents the game
breaking, it gives no information on what the best option to recover it
might be. (If there's a dictatorship scam that exists even in the new
ruleset, for instance, AIAN wouldn't block a change that prevented
proposals working altogether.)

--

-- 
ais523

Elliott Hird | 2 Jun 13:51 2011

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On 2 June 2011 12:41, ais523 <callforjudgement <at> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> AIAN isn't massively effective, though; although it prevents the game
> breaking, it gives no information on what the best option to recover it
> might be. (If there's a dictatorship scam that exists even in the new
> ruleset, for instance, AIAN wouldn't block a change that prevented
> proposals working altogether.)

Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.

Geoffrey Spear | 2 Jun 13:54 2011
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
> change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.

How pragmatic.

Elliott Hird | 2 Jun 16:09 2011

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073

On 2 June 2011 12:54, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> How pragmatic.

It's pragtonism.

Kerim Aydin | 2 Jun 21:04 2011

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7046, 7059-7073


On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
> > change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.
> 
> How pragmatic.

Proto:

Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is a Nomic) by appending:

Upon a judicial finding, not appealed for 2 weeks, that a specified 
game change that took effect in the 2 weeks preceding the CFJ has 
made it practically IMPOSSIBLE to make or adopt such rule changes/
proposals in this time frame by any remotely reasonable method, 
that change is so cancelled.  Such a finding is appropriate if and
only if the specified game change that would be cancelled is 
specified clearly, unambiguously, and as minimally as reasonably 
possible to remove the impossibility.

[The Platonic cancellation is still there in 1st paragraph as a 
failsafe if judicial system breaks too.  This pragmatic version
includes some boundaries for reasonableness; e.g. if a rule change
could happen by requiring everyone to deregister, maybe that's a
wholly unreasonable (not remotely reasonable) method].


Gmane