Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871
I'm not CFJing bc I promised not to spend money but you can if you want to. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> "Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this >> rule change fails due to ambiguity?" >> >> No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and >> it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards" >> with the sentence being replaced. > > > I am not convinced. It is customary for proposals to contain conditions like > "if proposal has passed", which only make sense if conditions are > evaluated when the proposal takes effect. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: "Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule change fails due to ambiguity?" No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards" with the sentence being replaced. I am not convinced. It is customary for proposals to contain conditions like "if proposal has passed", which only make sense if conditions are evaluated when the proposal takes effect. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871
"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"
No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sentence being replaced.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think it fails because "the rule currently not assigned a number called
> "Rewards"," just doesn't exist anymore. I think it would fail similarly to
> how something like "In the rule called 'Cuddlebeam is amazing', add: yadda
> yadda" would also fail, because such a rule just doesn't exist.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
>>
>>> In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the
>>> text
>>> {{ * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
>>> with
>>> {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be
>>> claimed
>>> a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per
>>> office
>>> per month for a monthly report.}}
>>
>>
>> Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule
>> change fails due to ambiguity?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>
--
>From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871
I think it fails because "the rule currently not assigned a number called
"Rewards"," just doesn't exist anymore. I think it would fail similarly to
how something like "In the rule called 'Cuddlebeam is amazing', add: yadda
yadda" would also fail, because such a rule just doesn't exist.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
>
> In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the
>> text
>> {{ * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
>> with
>> {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be
>> claimed
>> a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per
>> office
>> per month for a monthly report.}}
>>
>
> Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule
> change fails due to ambiguity?
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
