On 27 October 2014 20:59, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn > <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal >> Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals >> which are not pending. > > SHALL NOT
Oops, thanks for noticing. > >> Imminence is a swich, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by >> proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either >> "pending" or "not pending" (default). > > "switch", and does this count as an "attribute" for the purpose of > "Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed." ? Interesting. I want it to not be, obviously. Under the current rules we treat pending-ness as not being such an attribute. Making it a switch does make it more tangible, but Rule 2350 is unclear on what these properties are. It sort of reads like it was intended to include only the listed properties (name, authors, AI), but at the same time never makes that explicit. Would anything important be lost by changing "Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed" to "Once a proposal is created, none of these attributes can be changed"? (The previous paragraph is the list of attributes.) Would anything important be lost by removing that sentence completely? > >> Any player CAN spend 20 points to make a proposal pending. >> Any player CAN spend 10 points to make a proposal e did not >> author or co-author pending. > > by announcement I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. > >> Spending power is a natural office switch tracked by the IADoP. >> Its default value is 1. The holder of an office CAN make a >> proposal pending; e can do this a number of times each >> Agoran week not exceeding the spending power of that office. > > by announcement >> At the end of each Agoran week, the Promotor's spending >> power becomes 1 plus the number of offices whose spending >> power sat completely unused the preceding week. > > Annoying to track, I think. Yeah, you might be right. > >> Changes to imminence and pending power both are secured. > > "Spending power". And secured at power 1? Yes, at power 1. Do you think that's too low, or just that it should be spelled out? If we have defined defaults (the power of the rule), we should use them, is my thinking. -- Tiger
