DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:49, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Players MUST NOT make proposals submitted in accordance with this > rule Undistributable. > Why not? If someone wants to pay the 2 ergs, what's the problem?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On 08/12/2010 10:56 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:49, Sean Hunt mailto:ride...@gmail.com>> wrote: Players MUST NOT make proposals submitted in accordance with this rule Undistributable. Why not? If someone wants to pay the 2 ergs, what's the problem? Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In > particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal > undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a > once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On 08/13/2010 05:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated. I was considering it. -coppro
