Re: [s-d] [s-b] An Immodest Proposal

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 12:57 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
> > > /* The following proposal/PoO (depending on the current ruleset)
> > > merges the essential elements of the current Agoran rules with the
> > > essential elements of the probably-current B Nomic rules; the intent
> > > is to create a game that is recognizably B but with some of the
> > > stability of Agora. In general, rules numbering less than 100 are
> > > inessential B Nomic rules (with the exception of the very essential
> > > Rule 0), rules numbered 101-200 are significant Agoran rules, rules
> > > numbered 201-300 are essential B Nomic rules, and rules numbered 301
> > > or higher are either new rules introduced to help fuse the two
> > > rulesets or rules that fused corresponding rules out of both old
> > > rulesets. This strips us of contract law and gameplay, both of which
> > > ought to be reinserted either by non-emergent means or by subsequent
> > > Points of Order. */
> >
> > If we're under the Agora-like ruleset - and I think we are - you'll have
> > to set its Adoption Index to at least 3 for it to work.
> 
> 
> And specify a non-simultaneous order for the rule changes to be made in.

Wait, I just realised that that post was sent in February; it must have
been stuck in the lists. It could be an interesting alternative ruleset;
I'll have to read through it.

-- 
ais523

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