coppro wrote:
> Proposal: All's Well on the ID Front (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2161 by removing bullets (c) and (e) from the list, and
> relettering the rest accordingly, and amending bullet (b) to read
> (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
> number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
> digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
> an entity of that type, and ILLEGAL unless the number is
> one greater than the greatest ID number so assigned.
> [Defense of ignorance/impossibility should prevent this from being dumb]
> }}}
I'm fine with the amendment to (b), but (c) avoids (say) a rogue
Granulator assigning 55555555555555 and forcing eir successor to
continue the sequence from there (there is no defense of annoyance
apart from one-off legislation), and (e) is useful for infrequent
ID numbers such as NoVs.
> Proposal: Attorney Adjustment (AI=3, II=0, Distributable)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing
> A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
> to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
> be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
> sending a public message.
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
> the time date-stamped on that message.
> with
> A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
> to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
> be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
> message is considered a public message in its own right. A person
> "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message,.
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
> the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
> (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in
> the message, unless otherwise specified.
> }}}
Is this setting up for the return of power of attorney, and if so, why
not go ahead and propose (or at least proto) that too?
