On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:25:05PM +0100, Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
the
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued
that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent
game state.
More accurately, I argued that a
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Well, if a proposal can deem something that's not defined/regulated,
I don't think it can, in any lasting fashion. It was Michael who argued
that deeming constitutes an instantaneous change to the persistent
game state.
R2056 seems pretty straightforward to me.
Where is the
Zefram wrote:
Where is the Infraction of Invisibilitating defined?
Ah yes, you're right here. It was defined in Proposal 4513, but
as per R1503/5: An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction
only if defined as such by the Rules. so this overrules the
extra-Rules definition of the
On 6/18/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as soon as
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier
root wrote:
On 6/18/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as
Murphy wrote:
These are covered by Rule 1891 (Legislative Orders). This doesn't
extend to attempts to impose requirements on all players, since
Rule 1793 (Orders) requires Orders to have a single target.
Ah yes, by precedent (eg CFJs 1377, 1385), Be it Hereby Resolved
that X is Y is a
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
something more substantial).
That's what I thought as well, but
root wrote:
We may be thinking of proposal 4495, Repeal Ohm's Law
(http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4495). However,
that proposal failed.
I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
-G.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I remember that proposal faced unusual resistance...
Was it proportionate?
-zefram
11 matches
Mail list logo
