Ed Murphy wrote:
iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it
voted on in a timely fashion.
... and have it adopted if popular? Not sure how to phrase the
condition, but we definitely need such a clause.
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a
Proto-Proposal: Return of switches
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled Switches with this text:
A switch is a property that the rules define as being a switch,
pertaining to a type of entity, and having one or more possible
values.
Each switch has exactly one value.
Proto-Proposal: Beads and Wins
Rename Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to Beads, change its Power to 2,
and amend it to read:
Beads are property, but cannot be traded.
The Jewelor is an office. The Jewelor's report shall include
each player's beads.
Create a rule titled Earning
Murphy wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the receive clause right after
invoke clause,
Ed Murphy wrote:
Should be covered by the receive judgement clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required). Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
Activity is a player switch with values Active and Inactive.
The construction player switch hasn't been adequately defined.
You could
Ed Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled Earning Beads with Power 2 and this text:
Needs updating due to P4943. So does Forfeiting Beads.
4) 2 beads to increase a proposal's adoption index by 0.1.
I'm dubious about letting this influence Democratic proposals.
5) 2 beads to ban a
Kerim Aydin wrote:
There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures
that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable,
distribution costs in general).
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were.
Activity is a player switch with values Active and
Zefram wrote:
5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not
already assigned.
Does banning make em ineligible for assignment, or only oblige em to
not return a judgement?
This should be bar (R897) rather than ban.
A player with 42 or more beads is
Maud wrote:
Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to
a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific
property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch
only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is,
Michael Slone wrote:
Only entities explicitly given
permission to flip a switch may flip it.
That's permission. What about capacity to flip switches?
Amend rule 478 (Fora) by replacing the text reading:
...
The Herald may change the publicity of a forum
Zefram wrote:
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite
delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and
artificially restricted distribution.
Well, during the Papyri version of
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
Finally, the clause right to have it voted on is troubling. Is
it voted on if a veto or guillotine ends the
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This takes care of what if no state is mentioned first? (e.g. the
values are the players), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler to delete ``possible''. A default state is a
Zefram wrote:
I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
you don't pay that cost for a first draft. At
On May 7, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled precedence takes
precedence, and set its AI to 4:
{{{
Change the Power of rule 1482 to 4.
[At Power=3, R1482 doesn't work properly in the Power=3 region,
because
a Power=3 rule can take precedence
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work
On May 7, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to
creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in
that
On 5/7/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So any entity can flip any switch?
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip
On 5/7/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed
on 2005-05-15.
On 18 July 2001, Murphy
21 matches
Mail list logo
