> > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > PRESENT (for the moment) > > I'm not following the train of thought for why the proposed rule wouldn't > work. To me it reads like a sequence of events: 1) a player creates a > proposal; 2) e does not vote for it; 3) it passes. (The proposed rule has > steps 2 and 3 in the reverse order just by the flow of the sentence.) > "Passes" isn't defined in the rules, but it has a clear everyday meaning > and the SLR and FLR both literally list "Highest ID'd Proposal Passed" at > the beginning. > >
- I'm not sure that "vote for eir own proposal" is equivalent to "vote FOR eir own proposal" - I believe that it's not using the correct verbal tenses to express what it means. (I might be wrong, but I'm currently under that impression) Aside from that, and that I should've also noted, is that it seems to put the onus of keeping track of this on the Spendor, because the result just automatically happens and the Spendor is compelled to keep the spendies records straight. I don't believe that the Spendor should have to suddenly concern themselves with checking every Proposal voting table just to check for this. It should probably be an action By Announcement.
