Subject: Coma

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jan 2001 20:08:35 -0500

Hmm. I forgot Britta was in a Coma yesterday when I docked her 15 SPs for
Agoraphobia.

I remembered today for Office Hours, sort of. I said I was docking
her 10 BPs for failure to donate blood, but I was going to arbitrarily
forgive that... anyway, she didn't lose the 10 BPs, and I'm going to
restore the 15 SPs.

Rule 25 states

> A player in a Coma cannot lose or gain any pills or body / soul / cash
> points.

Trouble is, Rule 6 states

> When two or more rules conflict, precedence as specified explicitly
> by the rules is applied first. Where there is no non-conflicting
> explicit precedence, the rule with the lower number takes
> precedence.

Fortunately for Britta, the rules governing Blood Bank (26) and
Agoraphobia (1000) have higher numbers than the Coma rule. And I
don't see any rules below 25 that could cause a player, other than the
Epidemiologist, to lose points or pills. So I think Britta's safe --
but Feyd may want to be careful of going into Coma!

And obviously if a lower-numbered rule is amended to dock players for
any sort of inaction, Coma will be no protection. That obviously
wasn't the intent. Someone might want to look into plugging that
loophole. 

-- 
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY

---

From: Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:59:39 -0600

I propose that rule number 25 be renumbered as rule number 9 (since 9 was
repealed some time ago).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 19 Jan 2001 12:50:54 -0500

> I propose that rule number 25 be renumbered as rule number 9 (since 9 was

REJECTED since Kevan has proposed a more elegant solution.

Ottis has FoR. (Oh, by the way, Jeff loses 5 SPs for his Proposals
proposal, submitted under FoR.)

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:01:23 -0600

It would have been REALLY nice to have accepted the proposed rule that
proposals are judged in the order they are received.

At 12:50 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email-masked]
>
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 19 Jan 2001 14:38:06 -0500

> proposals are judged in the order they are received.

I did. It's in the Proposals rule, both before and after its recent
amendment.

However, judging a Proposal on the basis of comparison to later
(pending) Proposals is different from judging Proposals out of order.

Or are you, perhaps, complaining about the order in which today's
judgements arrived? Note that eGroups apparently had a problem during
which several messages were held up, and they may have been received
in a different order than they were sent.

-- 
- Doc