Re: [s-b] [s-d] Ballot for nweek 156

[Charles Walker <charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I've just reread the proposal and Rule 5-3 and I guess I'm wrong.
I submit the following ballot:

1909 - FOR

I submit the following proposal Checks and Balances (and some other stuff)
v. 2:
Replace the last paragraph of section 'Oracularities' of Rule 2-5 with this
text:

{

If the answered question is in relation to the obligations of a Minister,
and the priest determines that the Minister did not fulfill their
obligation(s), then then the Oracularity may cause
the corresponding Ministry to become vacant.

When a Consultation becomes Pondered, if the answer for that Consultation is
the same as the answer originally supplied by its Priest, then any
Oracularity submitted with that answer is followed and the gamestate and
rule changes it calls for take effect.

}

Add the following text to the end of Rule 2-6 (Scoring):

{

Whenever a Consultation becomes pondered:


   - The Priest who most recently answered the consultation gains 5 points.
   - For every claim of Consistency on the consultation, the Priest who most
   recently answered it gains 1 point.

}

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:49 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Charles Walker wrote:
>
>> I submit the following ballot:
>> 1909 - AGAINST
>>
> Might I inquire why you're voting against 1909?
>
> --
> --
> 0x44;
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business