shadowfirebird on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:50:36 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] nweek 113 ballot

> >> 43      Monotonicity is rather dull, don't you think?
> > ABSTAIN.  [[No game effect.  Why?]]
> This allows the Administrator to skip sequence numbers in the event
> we're not entirely sure whether an object exists or not.

Well, yes.  But why?  There is nothing in the rules that says that all
proposals have to be numbered in sequence; only that, when the
administrator assigns the number, it must be the highest existing
number plus one; which is not the same thing at all.

If we have proposals 23,24,25 and it turns out that proposal 24 is
invalid, there is nothing in the rules that is broken.  At the time of
assigning the a number to 25, the administrator did what the rules

If there is a problem it lies in the fact that there is no way to rule
a game object void.  The proposal exists, or it does not.  Maybe we
need a way of making a proposal not valid while still existing.  Or
perhaps the "no retrospectives" rule would apply here, if it passes.

Anyway, I don't know.  So I abstained... ::grin::
spoon-discuss mailing list