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?