Re: [s-d] Dipnomicy (again)

[Arkady English <arkadyenglish@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 September 2012 01:02, Jamie Ahloy Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Arkady English <arkadyenglish@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>
>> 8. Proposals to transmute a rule require a unanimous vote to be adopted.
>> 9. Proposals which do not
>> 9. Conflicts between rules may be avoided by explicitly deferring or
>> taking precedence in the rule’s text.
>>
>
> Looks like Rule 9 got cut off and doubled down.
>
>

My bad. I'll fix this at game start.

>> 16. Each move submission must contain a rule-change proposal. These
>> proposals are distributed anonymously in the move report.
>>
>
> I like making proposals/voting and moves follow the same timescale. Perhaps
> the rules should specify which occurs first, though (a rule change or move
> resolution).
>
> Was not including a time requirement in the rules deliberate? Makes sense
> to leave it up to the Sec Gen.
>

It's up to the Sec. Gen., I guess, whether moves or rule changes
happen first. In truth, I forgot to even consider the issue. As the
first rule clarification:
RULE CLARIFICATION: In each turn units are moved before enacted
proposals take effect. Moves will not, therefore, become illegal
between submission and happening.

Re: timescale: I'll use the move report to issue deadlines. Not having
a regulated deadline allows some flexibility in the actual timescale -
the Sec. Gen can grant deadline extensions if they're needed for
whatever reason. This, combined with the rule that the Sec. Gen. must
act in the best interests of the game should naturally lead to a
timescale that suits everyone. Of course, nothing is stopping a
timescale being introduced into the rules formally.

>>
>> 25. A navy may convoy an army. A convoy move specifies the start and
>> end territory of the army. Both these territories must be adjacent to
>> the territory occupied by the navy. On that turn an army in the
>> specified start territory may move to the specified end territory.
>>
>> This doesn't allow multi-convoys. How about "Both these territories must
> be joined by a series of convoying navies in adjacent territories"?
>
> Thanks for starting this.
>
> Jamie
> _______________________________________________
> 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