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?
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?
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.
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".
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.
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
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/.
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.
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].
RSS Feed175 | |
|---|---|
288 | |
26 | |
48 | |
56 | |
23 | |
99 | |
52 | |
100 | |
78 | |
125 | |
159 | |
113 | |
60 | |
93 | |
62 | |
138 | |
96 | |
88 | |
163 | |
17 | |
168 | |
171 | |
286 | |
129 | |
391 | |
143 | |
126 | |
217 | |
351 | |
198 | |
142 | |
307 | |
388 | |
123 | |
73 | |
93 | |
114 | |
107 | |
137 | |
192 | |
147 | |
363 | |
444 | |
528 | |
667 | |
701 | |
1238 | |
1276 | |
815 | |
713 | |
553 | |
426 | |
684 | |
1284 | |
1784 | |
791 | |
412 | |
1459 | |
1461 | |
660 | |
482 | |
296 | |
616 | |
856 | |
893 | |
883 | |
307 | |
258 | |
498 | |
288 | |
476 | |
601 | |
203 | |
110 | |
122 | |
264 | |
135 | |
18 | |
39 | |
47 | |
44 | |
20 | |
18 |
