In the most recent ruleset, I only replaced the "earn", not the "earns".
Someone can CoE it, but in a couple of weeks, Aris' proposal will pass
and converge the gamestate.
On 11/24/18 11:05 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Sorry, my mind isn’t getting the semantics of your comment. Could you
break
down what you mean?
The original rule text contains both the words "earn" and "earns", and
the latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).
Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well? If (1) no, then
it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy). If yes, did it
(2) get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a
suitable -s added for grammatical correctness? Does this whole thing
(4) make the triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails
completely?
And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection
proposal? (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced. (2) It will
turn what used to be "earns" into "earn". (3) It will leave what used
to be "earns" as "creates in eir possession". (4) It's fine but redundant.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>
wrote:
I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to
switch it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon
[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]
Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
You are, of course, correct.
I submit this proposal:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon
[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]
Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the
rest
of the game)
+1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned
activities)
(I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished
nobody's
CFJed them on principle yet...)
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <
oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129,
8131,
8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.
Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double
earnings.) However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to
trigger:
If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as
this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by
replacing
all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
--
Trigon
