Re: [s-d] [s-b] A Proposal or two

[ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/01/2008, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I submit a Proposal titled "Dog Days":
>
> Summary: One person gets to increase the vote power of any set of
> players by 1/2 each every nweek.  I predict rapid inflation of vote
> power.

Vote power is reset at the beginning of every Voting Period.

> > I submit a Proposal titled "Contracts":
> > A Contract may declare things that are not the word "cheese" to be
> > Game Objects. A Contract may declare a Contract Attribute of itself by
> > specifying its Scope, its Range, and its Default Value. Contract
> > Attributes are a type of Attribute. A Contract may specify changes to
> > one of its Contract Attributes, which are carried out as stated in the
> > A Contract may declare things to be Contract Actions of
> > itself. A player may make a Contract Action as a Game Action; when
> > this does, the appropriate part of the defining Contract is carried
> > out.
> There's no reason why a contract couldn't define, say, repealing Rule
> 4E1 as a Contract Action.

I guess you're right about that. I'll have to give that some thought
(in other words, amendment coming right up) before the Voting Period.

> > Contracts are device owner objects, which may transfer ownership of
> > their devices and destroy them as they say, unless a Rule states
> > otherwise. Contracts are also currency owning objects and may give
> > currency and exchange points for currency as they say, unless a Rule
> > states otherwise. [[They can also have points.]] When a Contract comes
> > into existence, its mackerel is immediately set to 0.}}
>
> Generalize for Game Actions?

So things that say "any Player may" mean Contracts can too?

> > I submit a Proposal titled "Supporting/Objecting stuff":
> >
> > {In Rule 21, replace "if, and only if, N Players do not object to the
> > action." with "if, and only if, at least N Players do not object to
> > the action." In Rule 22, replace "An action that must be performed
> > with N supporters occurs after N Players support the action." with "An
> > action that must be performed with N supporters occurs after at least
> > N Players support the action."}
>
> This doesn't do anything and makes the rules more confusing than they
> already are (difficult).

It adds "at least", which does make things a teeny bit clearer when
something requires 2.5 support.

> > I submit a Proposal titled "Oracularities Suck":
>
> But this Proposal won't repeal them.

But it will make them less necessary and give meaning back to the
YES/NO (though, admittedly, giving meaning to something isn't much of
an end in itself).
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss