Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: de-Spivakify Ruleset

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 Aug 2007, at 01:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> On 8/9/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Geoffrey, you probably saw this in another thread, but just  
>> pointing out you
>> might want to revise this proposal so that it clearly applies to
>> all currently pending proposals as well as existing rules + victory
>> conditions, just so we don't end up with little spivak islands.
>>
>> bad_leprechaun
>
> I'm not entirely sure that it would be legal to do so.
>
> I may withdraw the proposal and resubmit it with a higher number to
> make it take effect last.
>
> Of course, looking at the rules I don't see anything saying that
> proposals take effect in the form they were voted on (part of Suber's
> initial ruleset if I'm not mistaken) or that the changes to the game
> state made by a proposal can't include altering the text of another
> proposal but that still seems a bit sketchy to me...

It has happened in the past. then again you could use a self  
repealing rule that triggers at the beginning of nday 1, after other  
proposals have effect, that's been done too.

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