Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: de-Spivakify Ruleset

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Or, alternatively, I guess the easiest way, and I don't think anyone would
object, would be to de-spivakify any rules passed this nweek via a Tidiness
List during the next nweek, if this proposal on de-spivakification (say that
three times fast) passes.

On 8/9/07, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2007, at 01:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> > On 8/9/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Geoffrey, you probably saw this in another thread, but just
> >> pointing out you
> >> might want to revise this proposal so that it clearly applies to
> >> all currently pending proposals as well as existing rules + victory
> >> conditions, just so we don't end up with little spivak islands.
> >>
> >> bad_leprechaun
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure that it would be legal to do so.
> >
> > I may withdraw the proposal and resubmit it with a higher number to
> > make it take effect last.
> >
> > Of course, looking at the rules I don't see anything saying that
> > proposals take effect in the form they were voted on (part of Suber's
> > initial ruleset if I'm not mistaken) or that the changes to the game
> > state made by a proposal can't include altering the text of another
> > proposal but that still seems a bit sketchy to me...
>
> It has happened in the past. then again you could use a self
> repealing rule that triggers at the beginning of nday 1, after other
> proposals have effect, that's been done too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss