Re: [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.

[M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I object to that amendment, if that is possible. This is for the reason that that action causes what would, in one of the old Rulesets, be known as a Dictatorship, at least if the Players wish to avoid carrying out actions on the LOGAS.

--- On Sun, 27/6/10, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.
To: "spoon-business" <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, 27 June, 2010, 21:03

They can't directly cause changes to the gamestate, obviously, but
other changes can still be carried out as a result of their presence.

In the absence of an indication to the contrary in the ruleset, a
statement that a player may do something means that the action is
possible. (Rule 14.) And players may make use of proposals to amend
the LOGAS. (Rule 79.)

I submit the following proposal, entitled "Vacuity": {{Replace all
instances of the word "green" in rule 77 with "purple."}}

I use the proposal "Vacuity" to amend the LOGAS by adding the
following action: {{Disobeying a request from Rule 700.}}

I hereby request that other players not amend the LOGAS in this fashion.

 - Rule 700
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business



      
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business