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

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
>
> 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...

This nomic has quite a history to proposals mucking with other
proposals. Modifying all proposals numbered higher than you would be a
reasonable approach to the problem. As would creating a rule that
would trigger once there were no Open proposals and then repealed
itself.

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