Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS submits p28

[Jimmy Kaplowitz <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:56:54PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> I don't know that one, but since a Party is nothing more than a group of 
> people trying to uphold the words on some piece of paper somewhere, I don't 
> think there's too much one can do with that. That is, a Party's rules don't 
> have any bearing on the rest of the Game, because they're not in the 
> ruleset. If it would make people feel better, I can always make that 
> explicit. Would that help?

Yes. As written, someone could define an rule as part of the "internal
workings of a Party" that tries to affect the Gamestate. Then, unless a
CFI contrains the definition of "internal workings" (I can think of why
such a CFI might fail), no Rule could attempt to change this, and that
paragraph of your proposal would enforce that (until changed if such a
change is possible).

Also, I imagine there will eventually be enough Rules governing
Political Parties that it should go in its own section, not Generic
Definitions. This Definition also seems quite non-Generic. In any case,
if it does go in Generic Definitions, you should change that if the
Generic Definitions proposal doesn't pass.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss