On 2020-07-12 4:02 p.m., Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-07-12 2:05 p.m., Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/11/20 11:59 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
at 8:42 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion
<agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I think this is missing 'replacing "more supply centers than units"
with
"more Supply than its number of units"'.
I'm not sure what the proposal does in the case that a player has more
Supply than units, but not more supply centres than units.
Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out.
I retract “Disagreeable Proposal”.
I submit the following Diplonomic Proposal, titled “Disagreeable
Proposal
v2":
{{
Create a new Diplonomic rule:
{
All Contestants who submitted a non-withdrawn vote in favor of the
Proposal
that created this rule, before that Proposal was enacted, have one
greater
Supply than they otherwise would.
}
Amend Diplonomic rule 23 by replacing “the number of supply centers it
controls” with “its Supply”, by replacing “fewer supply centers than
units”
with “less Supply than its number of units”, by replacing “more supply
centers than units” with “more Supply than its number of units”, and by
appending as a new paragraph:
{
A country’s Supply is by default the number of supply centers it
controls,
subject to modification by other rules.
}
}}
This proposal would require the Judge to reveal the votes on this
proposal, which e is specifically prohibited from doing.
I submit the following Diplonomic Proposal, titled "Judicial Veto":
{
To the end of Rule 8, append: "If enacting a proposal would interfere
with the Judge's ability to ensure the smooth running of the game in
accordance with these rules, then e NEED NOT enact that proposal, so
long as e publishes an explanation of the problem, and this exception
overrides any requirement for em to enact that proposal."
}
(This also gives the Judge a way out if a proposal would make eir job
very difficult.)
I retract that and in its place submit the following Diplonomic
Proposal, titled "Judicial Veto 1.1":
{
To the end of Rule 8, append: "If enacting a proposal would interfere
with the Judge's ability to ensure the smooth running of the game in
accordance with these rules, then other rules notwithstanding, e NEED
NOT enact that proposal, so long as e publishes an explanation of the
problem."
}
(the ", and ..." seemed gramatically a little ambiguous in the first
version)
--
Falsifian
