On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:39 +, Alex Smith wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement Murphy's recent attempt to cause
Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
mechanism specified in the rule
ais523 wrote:
H. CotC Murphy: you have less than a day left to assign these, and they
aren't listed in your database anywhere. Especially as proposal 6159 is
pending, this is pretty urgent; otherwise, I'll have to try to exploit
the possible dictatorship before its existence is ruled on,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
What about having the resolution of the proposal count as the win
announcement?
The idea is that the player's own action should always cause the win,
so e can take care of eir Rests and not have to worry about timing
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
standard, as is shown by this quote from
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 10:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In the example ais523 gives for points, the difference matters for
it depletes a reserve of points awardable for a particular contest.
However, that means the consequences differ. In the current
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
As permitted by the rule created by Proposal 6130, I cause Rule 2223
(Win by Junta) to amend itself by appending this paragraph:
This fails because it is unclear whether this is
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
I nominate myself for Assessor.
Note: I will be out of town for 5 days starting just before this
nomination period ends; delays in starting any resulting election
are not due to favoritism. -Goethe.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
A win announcement is not required for a Win by Junta; instead, the
winning condition is satisfied as soon as the rule comes to contain
the dictatorship text. Note that this means Murphy did not win
because, at the time the rule came to contain that
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
only? I generally find When a rule comes to... to be pretty close to
When it has come to pass that... which lasts as long as the text is in
the
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Is it that clear cut that the particular win rule works in the instant
only? I generally find When a rule comes to... to be pretty close to
When it has come to pass that... which
comex wrote:
Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
with:
Upon a win
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
Amend Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) by replacing:
When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it
to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those
persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.
with:
12 matches
Mail list logo
