Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS votes

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Fair enough, but I think enough people seem to realise that using 'create' 
denotes creating a new rule. This seems to be the default action of the 
game. I could create amendments, but I usually choose to 'amend' instead. At 
present I am simply creating text that will be filed in the BNomic Rules 
document thus becoming a rule.

Game precident also backs me up on this as people have voted for my props in 
the past. And, as you have not commented on previous proposals, I would 
assume that it hasn't been a problem before.

I think you also know that it is neither a card or add-on as you have just 
declared you are CFIing it because it isn't clear enough that it is a rule. 
Just because I didn't specify it so exact.

-Rainbow Wolfe



On 6/7/05, Alex Truelsen <dichotomousmind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> "Create a rule:" would work. "Create a new rule in section X with the
> following text" would be preferable. How do I know you're not creating a
> Card or an Add-On? It's not anyone's place to make assumptions about what
> people meant. Unless you specify what you're doing, it can only be assumed
> to be an illegal action, and I will CFI as such if either of those 
> proposals
> passes.
> 
> [[BvS]]
> 
> On 6/6/05, Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Proposal 102/2: Diplomatic Immunity (and double negatives) : Against
> > > This doesn't say what you're creating (yes, I can see it's a rule, but
> > you
> > > don't say so).
> > >
> > > Proposal 108/0: What A Silly Proposal [WASP] : Against
> > > Again with the "create."
> >
> >
> > Would the following be supplementary appropriate to the continuation of
> > preserving the exactitude enforced within the precise unequivocal
> > expression
> > of the existing game?
> >
> > "Generate an additional regulation in subdivision 'X': 'Y', of the
> > document
> > entitled 'B Nomic Ruleset'. This additional regulation is to exist with
> > the
> > designated title 'X' in addition to the subsequent delimited text:
> >
> > {{
> >
> > }}"
> >
> > This, to be used in the role of opposition regarding using the solitary
> > distinct word 'create', or synonyms comparable to.
> >
> >
> > "Modify the currently functioning regulation numbered 'X': 'Y', to
> > comprise
> > the delimited text subsequent to this paragraph after first deleting the
> > currently existing text that already resides in the field of the 
> specified
> > locality.
> >
> > {{
> >
> > }}"
> >
> > This, to be used with regard to synonyms with the purpose of existing by
> > way
> > of the denotation 'amend'.
> >
> >
> > Finally:
> >
> > "Eradicate the subsequent regulation from the document entitled 'B Nomic
> > Ruleset'.
> > 'X', 'Y'."
> >
> > This, being designed to be used as an alternative to the expression
> > 'remove'.
> >
> > - RW
> >
> > (and I don't doubt that this is too convoluted to be of any meaning 
> except
> > to me having just written it)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You forget one thing... I'm Captain Jack Sparrow.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 



-- 
You forget one thing... I'm Captain Jack Sparrow.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss