> Shoot. I caught a typo. I withdraw Side-Game Suspension Act (v2) and I
> submit the following revised proposal:
Does it need to have AI 3? I don't see any rules with power more than
2 in that set.
Also, is it clear what happens to the assets defined by those rules?
R1586 says an entity cease
> I think all the R105 requirements are satisfied by publishing the rule that
> contains the change, i.e. it's if there was an SLR published in the 4-60 day
> time window beforehand.
Oh, that's interesting. Let me check my understanding...
R105 says the full text of the rule change, and the metho
On 5/9/2019 10:10 PM, James Cook wrote:
>>
>> "[When both systems have been revived], any player can cause this rule
>> to repeal itself with Notice".
>
> I think the second-last paragraph of Rule 105 requires the warning period.
>
> It also says the "full text" of any rule change must be publis
> - "Automatic rules repeals" are a little dangerous because
> if there's uncertainty as to the conditions the ruleset may change
> automagically without visible trace. It's generally better to tie ruleset
> changes to a required statement of change that can be hunted up in
> the lists, and even b
For what it's worth, I'm interested in Spaaace!, but not enough to put
time yet into assembling a new Astronomor's report when more basic
officers' duties are unfilled.
Is there much harm in just leaving the Astronomor office (effectively)
vacant until someone finds the time? Not that I feel stron
Oh, and you might also want to add an "in ascending numerical order"
after each instance of "are automatically repealed".
-Aris
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:55 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I think for the space rules you meant rules 2593 and 2594, rather than 259.
>
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2019
I think for the space rules you meant rules 2593 and 2594, rather than 259.
-Aris
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:02 AM D Margaux wrote:
>
> We should probably do something about Spaace and Politics, since there’s
> little interest in them, but the rules have lots of obligations that are
> going unf
On 5/9/2019 8:21 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
>> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants
>> to bring it back?
>
> I agree it’s probably not
> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants to
> bring it back?
I agree it’s probably not an improvement. I mostly wrote it up this way
If we take this route, I think whomever revives and takes the office should
be under an added penalty to stick with the office - "if a player does this,
e must perform all the Astronomor duties with no late duties for at least
60 days".
But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over
10 matches
Mail list logo
