Jamie Dallaire on Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:34:07 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [MoC] Ballot for nweek 138

On Feb 2, 2008 8:55 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 339: Contracts (Ivan Hope)
> > http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Proposals/0339
> > Vote on 339: {{AGAINST}}

Ivan. I read the new version and still think allowing contracts to declare
things to be game objects is a bit much.

> > http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Proposals/0340
> > 340: Supporting/Objecting stuff (Ivan Hope)
> > Vote on 340: {{AGAINST}}
> >
>    In your first clause "less than N" should be "fewer than N". In your
> second clause you've muddied the meaning of support. When a game action
> occurs with support, that means that as soon as the support is received
> the game action is taken. Other people may support or object, but the
> action already took place. Your proposed change doesn't alter that. If
> this doesn't pass, you should resubmit with only the first clause.

I really don't think the second clause messes anything up. If I understand
correctly, he's trying to fix the situation where N is not a whole number (
e.g. when it's based on quiggle, some nweeks). Currently, if N is 2.5, the
action should technically occur once 2.5 support is received. This proposal
fixes that to say the action happens once AT LEAST 2.5 support is received,
which makes a lot more sense in my opinion since we do not have

Billy Pilgrim
spoon-discuss mailing list