FWIW, the intention of my proposal was to handle broken rules better, not to
make this a legitimate method of tracking switches. Apologies if you already
understood that.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
>
> A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
> in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
> office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
> assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the office
> would be effectively consenting to deal with minigame switches.
>
> Basically The Fat Director, but with a proactive scope of "game-tracking".
>
> (If we introduce a bunch at once, maybe we should actually score them so you
> need to win 3 minigames to win the game or something, so we don't have to
> worry about whether each one causes too many wins).
>
> -G.
>
> On 10/20/2019 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Bleh.
>> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
>> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
>> harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
>> {
>> Title: Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one
>> AI: 1
>> Co-authors: Jason Cobb
>> Remove the following paragraph from Rule 2139 “The Registrar”: {
>> The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
>> defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track
>> them, unless the switch is defined as untracked.
>> }
>> Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following
>> text: {
>> For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is
>> not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of
>> [switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
>> }
>> [1006/44 states:
>> When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the
>> proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal
>> becomes the holder of the office.
>> I think this works, but we might need to clarify the meaning of “creates a
>> new office” to be sure.]
>> }
>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>> Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following
>>>> text: {
>>>> For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is
>>>> not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of
>>>> [switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> I get the intent, but would this create an office per type of switch or per
>>> instance of a switch?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
