Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 17 Mar 2014, 16:44

Leaving it rather vague: Vague has its strengths and drawbacks. Vague with no way to settle issues has serious drawbacks. I have no desire to enter into arguments with no defined way to settle them about what Things belong in what collections.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 04:31

Crunkus wrote:So if I argue that another thing could arguably be a part of the collection you have, where does that leave whether it is complete or not?

How do I argue this? When is it settled?

If I create another thing that can be argued to be a part of a "complete" collection, is that collection incomplete again?


A Thing is a part of a Collection if it A)has the property of being Collectible, and B)is defined under that property as being a part of that Collection.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 04:33

Crunkus wrote:If I create another thing that can be argued to be a part of a "complete" collection, is that collection incomplete again?


Yes. It is very clear-cut which Things are in which Collection. If another Thing is created belonging to the Complete Collection that you possess, your Collection is no longer Complete.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 04:38

Crunkus wrote:
Pagane wrote:
Crunkus wrote:As much as I don't want to point this out, it seems relevant: This Thing seems to contradict 302.K which is not a narfable clause as written. That seems like a big problem as it takes critical functionality from the Thing.
How does it contradict?

You're stating that a procedure outlined in the rule works a different way. A thing can't do that to a clause that isn't narfable.


If I remove the "All Standard Rules" phrase and detail the entire procedure for voting on a Thing proposed by Draco's Law, would that not infringe on 302.K? Or does the infringement stem from having someone other than the Proposer propose a Thing?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 05:28

The thing you describe outlines voting procedures on the creation of Things. You are outlining voting procedures on the creation of Things. Your procedures cannot overstep the rule's procedures because those procedures are not narfable.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 07:02

Crunkus wrote:The thing you describe outlines voting procedures on the creation of Things. You are outlining voting procedures on the creation of Things. Your procedures cannot overstep the rule's procedures because those procedures are not narfable.


In your opinion, does the fact that 302.K refers to Things being created by the current proposer, and that Draco's Law is an entirely different form of Thing creation, make a difference?

I believe that 302.K doesn't actually apply to a Thing being created via another Thing. After all, Jedi Knights can now create Lightsabers without employing any rules of Thing creation from 302.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 15:28

Pagane wrote:
Crunkus wrote:The thing you describe outlines voting procedures on the creation of Things. You are outlining voting procedures on the creation of Things. Your procedures cannot overstep the rule's procedures because those procedures are not narfable.


In your opinion, does the fact that 302.K refers to Things being created by the current proposer, and that Draco's Law is an entirely different form of Thing creation, make a difference?



Not according to the way the original rule is written. It's not being disputed it's a "different kind of Thing Creation". It's still thing creation that is voted upon, which is covered by 302.K

Pagane wrote:I believe that 302.K doesn't actually apply to a Thing being created via another Thing. After all, Jedi Knights can now create Lightsabers without employing any rules of Thing creation from 302.


If the lightsabers required voting to come into being, then 302.K would be relevant to the procedure by which they do so. They don't.

You could set up a procedure to vote for something else, which if approved with then create the specified thing. This would be a potential workaround.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 15:36

So I could have players vote on whether the possessor is allowed to use Draco's Law, and if that passes then Draco's Law creates the Thing?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 15:47

Pagane wrote:So I could have players vote on whether the possessor is allowed to use Draco's Law, and if that passes then Draco's Law creates the Thing?

You could put a proposed thing then have people vote on the right of Draco or some such. That way you aren't voting on the thing. But you would have to specify the thing would need to have the properties previously advertised.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Pagane » 18 Mar 2014, 16:06

Done. The possessor shall state "I seek Draconian Rule" in size 125 or greater, and present the Thing that he wishes to create during the proposal phase. During voting, all other players may vote Draco: AYE/NAY in green, size 125 or greater, on whether the possessor may use Draco's Law at the end of the current turn.

Quick question- would voting to allow or disallow the use of Draco's Law still raise or lower one's midi-chlorian count? I assume it would, but since it's not actually voting on a Thing...
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest