Gotcha. The nomic where I come from transmuted the 25-rule limit on mutable rules, so we consider it bad to have rules of pure silliness.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:14 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 09 December 2007 20:11:35 Iammars wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something about this proposal, but the only thing this > > appears to do is to make an arbitrary gamestate variable based on a > private > > contract. I don't understand why I should vote to pass this. > Pure silliness, and overturning some precedent. > The Department of Mental Health is in the same train of thought. > > > > On Dec 9, 2007 9:17 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I create the following proposal: > > > "Elephants" > > > Create the following rule: > > > There are 5 elephants. > > > There is an elephant switch, known as Elephant Location; its > valid > > > values are > > > North, South, East, West, and Over There (default). It is > tracked > > > by the > > > Department of Mental Health. > > > > > > Upon adoption of this proposal: four elephants have their Elephant > > > Location > > > set to the cardinal directions. > > > > > > I create the following proposal: > > > "Hats" > > > Create the following rule: > > > There is a person switch, known as Hat-Wearing; its valid > values > > > are Wearing > > > and Not Wearing (default). It is tracked by the Department of > > > Mental Health. > > > A person may toggle their Hat-Wearing by announcement; this is > > > "putting on" > > > or "taking off" a hat. > > > > > > Upon adoption of this proposal, Murphy puts on a hat. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -----Iammars > > www.jmcteague.com > > > > > -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
