On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says
> without.
>
Oops...thanks!
BobTHJ
It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says
without.
Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran
consent.
Unless I missed a rule where CAN = cannot this would mean at any time a
player could simply declare a chamber as not a chamber.
so sho
Proto (take II):
Chambers
AI: 3
{
Create a new rule titled "Chambers" with Power=3 and the text:
{{
A player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the
contract into a chamber with Agoran consent. A chamber requires no
parties. The authority index of a chamber is an rational numbe
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Off the top of my head, a Power=1 rule could (if created) allow
> decreasing AI, and/or re-define "ratio" and shift it from 754(3)
> to 754(2). Anything else?
I imagine it could even change the text of a proposal.
-root
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>>> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
>>> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
>>> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
>> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
>> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured
root wrote:
> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured
> change per Rule 106?
No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for
7 matches
Mail list logo
