Re: [s-d] [s-b] [CotC] CFJ 5 assigned to Judge 0x44

[Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:25, Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 May 2009, comex wrote:
>>>> I intend to appeal this with two support.  Rule 105 explicitly disallows
>>>> simultaneous rule changes.  If those specified by the proprosal are necessarily
>>>> simultaneous, they cannot occur at all.
>>>
>>> I support.  -G.
>>>
>> I support, and think we should patch round this with a proposal that
>> works in both rulesets. Also get rid of AI, it's a rather Agoran
>> holdover.
>
> Having missed the discussion, I'm kinda wondering what your intent was
> in adopting Agoran rules.  I mean getting rid of a lot of the history
> (e.g. patent titles) makes sense, but if you start to get rid of AI
> (and if you do how do power and proposals work?) then you're getting
> rid of the fundamentals you adopted... any particular goal or guiding
> philosophy here?
>
I personally saw the adoption of the Agoran ruleset as a chance for B
to finally have a stable ruleset that wouldn't succumb to emergency
crashing and reset every few weeks. That's why I chose to re-join B. B
had a lot of interesting elements, but repeated emergencies and the
constant rolling back of gamestate made it unfun to play.

In my estimation, the majority of the Agoran ruleset should be kept as
it is stable and nowhere near prone to crashing as B's past rulesets
have been. I wouldn't support the repeal of AI, or most any other of
the primary functions of the Agoran ruleset.

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