I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva Convention of a sort, maybe?)
It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space Battles. Also, a duo of players could still bypass this. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email: > when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot > of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even > have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the > idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists. > > I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it: > > ----- > Title: No one likes a (space) bully > AI: 1 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in > Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and > adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship > initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is > attacking." > > On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > ----- > > Title: version ∞ > > AI: 3 > > Author: Trigon > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted > > list: > > > > * A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been > > retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar > > purpose. > > > > -- > Trigon >
