Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't think we should risk the mess of the conditional.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Would the following proposal be valid?  I'm unsure if the subvoting
> > mechanism i'm suggesting will work.
>
> Yes, we've used conditionals like this in proposals before, and no-one
> said they *didn't* work, as long as the conditionals were clearly
> resolvable.  I might be worried slightly about the missing quotation
> mark, given its placement.
>
> > Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7
> Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'
> >
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
> >
> > If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
> something,
> > without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely
> manner in order to not
> > break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> >
> >   If more players, who vote FOR this proposal, indicate they want
> 'Further Constriction then append the following paragraph
> > to Rule 2450:
> >   {{{
> > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
> for any other person or office, without the other
> > party's explicit consent.
> >   }}}
> >
> >   otherwise append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
> >   {{{
> > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
> for any other person.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:36 Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >   > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new
> obligations
> >   > for any other person or office, without the other party's
> explicit consent.
> >
> >   He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
> >   (not that this is bad).
> >
> >   The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by
> common
> >   definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later
> consent.
> >
> >   Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

天火狐 is right, the way it is written now, Agencies will mess with this.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
> any other person.
>
> I think this should be changed to "A player CANNOT make any pledge that
> would create new obligations for any other person or office, without the
> other party's explicit consent."
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 22 May 2017 at 20:47, Aris Merchant  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
>>> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
>>> Gaelan, Aris'
>>> {{{
>>>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>>>   {{{
>>> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>>>
>>> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
>>> something,
>>> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely
>>> manner in order to not
>>> break said pledge.
>>>
>>> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
>>> for any other person.
>>>   }}}
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!
>>
>> Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you,
>> for submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it
>> if you could make it an annotation or something.
>>
>>  -Aris & The Office of the Promotor
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Would the following proposal be valid?  I'm unsure if the subvoting 
> mechanism i'm suggesting will work.

Yes, we've used conditionals like this in proposals before, and no-one
said they *didn't* work, as long as the conditionals were clearly
resolvable.  I might be worried slightly about the missing quotation
mark, given its placement.

> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7 
> Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'
> 
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
> 
>     If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do 
> something,
>     without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner in 
> order to not
>     break said pledge.
>   }}}
> 
>   If more players, who vote FOR this proposal, indicate they want 'Further 
> Constriction then append the following paragraph
> to Rule 2450:
>   {{{
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any 
> other person or office, without the other
> party's explicit consent.
>   }}}
> 
>   otherwise append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
>   {{{
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any 
> other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:36 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>   >     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
>   > for any other person or office, without the other party's explicit 
> consent.
> 
>   He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
>   (not that this is bad).
> 
>   The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
>   definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later 
> consent.
> 
>   Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Quazie]

Would the following proposal be valid?  I'm unsure if the subvoting
mechanism i'm suggesting will work.

Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7
Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'

{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.

If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
something,
without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
in order to not
break said pledge.
  }}}

  If more players, who vote FOR this proposal, indicate they want 'Further
Constriction then append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
  {{{
A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
any other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.
  }}}

  otherwise append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
  {{{
A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
any other person.
  }}}
}}}





On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:36 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
> > for any other person or office, without the other party's
> explicit consent.
>
> He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
> (not that this is bad).
>
> The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
> definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later consent.
>
> Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations 
> for any other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.

He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
(not that this is bad).

The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later consent.

Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Josh T]

> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any
other person.

I think this should be changed to "A player CANNOT make any pledge that
would create new obligations for any other person or office, without the
other party's explicit consent."

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 20:47, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
>> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
>> Gaelan, Aris'
>> {{{
>>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>>   {{{
>> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>>
>> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
>> something,
>> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
>> in order to not
>> break said pledge.
>>
>> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
>> any other person.
>>   }}}
>> }}}
>>
>> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!
>
> Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you,
> for submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it
> if you could make it an annotation or something.
>
>  -Aris & The Office of the Promotor
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
> Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>
> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
> something,
> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
> in order to not
> break said pledge.
>
> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
> any other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!

Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you, for
submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it if
you could make it an annotation or something.

 -Aris & The Office of the Promotor