Re: [s-d] [s-b] Wooble's nweek 135 Refresh Proposal

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like your proposal. A few comments below.

On 12/13/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> IRepeal Rule 1-22.


Does Rule 1-22 exist? I don't think it does. Is this just here in case it
does? Might as well Repeal Rule 1-17 along with it, just to make sure it's
nice and gone. Also, if you're ratifying a public display of the rules at
the end of this proposal, is it necessary to list these changes as more than
a comment (by these changes i mean the ones that are already reflected in
the ratified display...)?

In Rule 1-10, remove the following text:
> {{{
> Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless that Game Action
> was to declare another Game Action invalid, or to submit a
> consultation. An invalid Game Action is treated as if it never
> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
> submit a consultation whose text reads "XXX is valid", where XXX is
> the Game Action they attempted to perform. When that consultation
> becomes Pondered, if the priest answered it Yes, the Player who
> declared that game action to be invalid loses 10 Points.
>
> Any Game Action which has not been declared invalid by the above
> within the allowed timespan is considered to be valid in every way,
> even if it is in contradiction to the rules. [[Note: This ensures that
> illegal actions can not cause the gamestate to be reversed more than
> one day]]
> }}}
>
>
> [[Ratify the public displays]]
>
> The gamestate is changed to what it would be if the following Public
> Displays were correct:
>
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Players&oldid=4459
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Ministries&oldid=4461


Again, it's a bit confusing as to whether 0x44 is to get only the 16 point
addition reflected in the above display, or if he should be getting that
plus another 16 point increase as specified above in this RP. Of course, I
know what you intend, but I'm not sure it's what it says. As for the Rules
display, it's not a confusing situation like this one because what goes into
effect first is specified right below this, but some parts are just
redundant as I said above.

In addition, the Rules are set to what they would be if the Public
> Display of each Rule on the wiki and the Rules page itself were
> correct as of 0:00 UTC on 13 December 2007 and these Rules were only
> modified as specified in this Refresh Proposal.  Any purported changes
> to the Rules that were not reflected in these wiki pages as shown in
> their History or enacted in this Refresh Proposal are entirely null
> and void.
>
> }}
>
> --Wooble
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business



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