Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Wonko submits p1914/0

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 6, 2004, at 12.18 AM, Jake Eakle wrote:

> Seems fine to me, but for the following syntactical errors that i 
> hereby
> save you from having to Recctify later. First of all:

Unfortunately I was gone most of the day, and now it's too late to 
change any of these without Rectification.

> > To Audit
> > another player, a player must include in the Action the number of 
> > Tildex that
> > the player in question should have paid. If X is the number of Tildex 
> > that
> > should have been paid,
>
> I assume that the X refers to the actual number, not the number stated 
> by
> the auditor. A more efficient and less confusing wording would be:
>
> To audit another player, a player must include in the Action a number 
> X. If
> X is the number of tildex the audited player should have paid..

I figured that in any legal Auditing, the number stated by the auditor 
and the actual number are the same by definition; otherwise, you 
haven't succeeded in Auditing. But that could definitely use a bit of 
clarification.


Of course, if you give the wrong number, and nobody notices, the SoL 
will make it all alright in a short while.

Which reminds me, we ought to fix up the SoL at some point to account 
for the fact that things like this will probably never be announced by 
the Admin, or even by me - most likely it'll be the Ministers of the 
Roster and Tildex...

> Perhaps a penalty for false audits should be added too?

I do like the idea of penalizing people for screwing up, but I'm not 
sure how to phrase that... "if a player attempts to Audit another 
player but gives the wrong number of Tildex or chooses a player who did 
pay the Maintenance Tax, the Auditing player loses 50 Tildex", perhaps? 
But one could argue that there is no 'auditing player', because e 
failed to audit... Hmmm....

> Also 5*X is unnecessary, especially when you have 2X/3 just before. I 
> don't
> think i've seen asterisks as times symbols used in the nomic before..

We do have a precedent for this - go to, say, 
http://www.bnomic.org/hist-rules.php?w=40&go=go (the rules as of nweek 
40) and search the page for '*', and you'll find a bunch of places 
where it's used in this fashion.

But you're right, I don't need it and it's inconsistent with my earlier 
notation. I'll probably Rectify it if the prop passes.

> There, now i've been really annoying and nitpicky. woo

Ah, the true spirit of Nomic :)

--
Wonko

< > ! * ' ' #
^ @ ` $ $ -
! * ' $ , _
% * < > #4
& ) . . /
| { ~ ~  System Halted

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