Re: [s-d] [s-b] As per Wooble's Refresh update

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

So.... I've only managed to semi-keep track of B's demise over the last few
days.

And have been vaguely wondering why PoOs are relevant if we have an 8-year
old gamestate, and vice versa... (Or is the old gamestate no longer
relevant??)

But just so you all know, I'm down with starting D Nomic. Or resurrecting A.
Or any other similar proposal.

Cheers!

BP

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It can't be the union of all rulesets from passed Points of Order,
> > because several of them require that the whole ruleset be replaced
> > with their contents (rather than having their contents added to the
> > ruleset) and thus don't get to coexist. So whichever one resolves last
> > wins - except that they resolve simultaneously.
>
> Clearly, the answer is that all of the PoOs that replace the whole
> ruleset get to take turns writing to a Ruleset document one character
> at a time, and we argue about how to translate the resulting document
> into English from Ancient B.
> --
> Wooble
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss