Re: [s-d] Dipnomicy (again)

[Jamie Ahloy Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Arkady English <arkadyenglish@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:


> 8. Proposals to transmute a rule require a unanimous vote to be adopted.
> 9. Proposals which do not
> 9. Conflicts between rules may be avoided by explicitly deferring or
> taking precedence in the rule’s text.
>

Looks like Rule 9 got cut off and doubled down.


> 16. Each move submission must contain a rule-change proposal. These
> proposals are distributed anonymously in the move report.
>

I like making proposals/voting and moves follow the same timescale. Perhaps
the rules should specify which occurs first, though (a rule change or move
resolution).

Was not including a time requirement in the rules deliberate? Makes sense
to leave it up to the Sec Gen.

>
> 25. A navy may convoy an army. A convoy move specifies the start and
> end territory of the army. Both these territories must be adjacent to
> the territory occupied by the navy. On that turn an army in the
> specified start territory may move to the specified end territory.
>
> This doesn't allow multi-convoys. How about "Both these territories must
be joined by a series of convoying navies in adjacent territories"?

Thanks for starting this.

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