Re: [s-d] [s-b] Gamestate collapse.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:36 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> Sadly, looking at the initial rules, I have discovered that it relies
>> on not obeying the modern tradition of excessive literalism and that
>> under modern B game custom we're not allowed to agree that any
>> proposals have ever passed:
>>
>> "A proposal passes if, and only if, it receives a majority of
>> affirmative votes." (Rule 32/0)
>>
>> Given that each ballot has multiple proposals, I don't think a
>> majority of the affirmative votes have ever demonstrably been on a
>> single validly-distributed ballot.
> Did the original version of the rules have comments?

Yes, but I can't find any rule with more than one comment.

> It's entirely possible that the original ruleset is still the correct
> one, then. We should be able to continue play from there. And that rule
> doesn't prevent proposals passing, just makes the passing condition
> rather weird.

It makes the passing condition weird, which is fine. What it does
break is the ability to distribute ballots... which, in turn, requires
action by the Administrator, identified by the rules at the time as
being David E. Smith. Under this interpretation, he's still the Admin.

Luckily, he's still contactable. I'm trying to convince him to come bail us out.

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