Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] altering proposals

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT)

Heheh.. 

On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Aidan McLoughlin wrote:
>Create "Section 0-1-0-3: Clarification" with the following SQUARE
>BRACKETS-delimited text:
>
>SQUARE BRACKETS
>In the text of a proposal any text contained within square brackets is to
>be used for clarification of the main body of the proposal only and is not
>to be considered an effective part of the proposal. [therefore anything
>written inside these brackets does not mean anything regarding the
>proposal, so anything could be written here and it would not effect the
>proposal, however writing inside square brackets that you intend to join
>the rp is publically declaring it and is treason] It may however be used as
>evidence of the meaning of the proposal in a CfJ.
>SQUARE BRACKETS
>
>Nothing has been changed from what I sent Brian.

And yes, we do in fact have a conflict between a proposal you sent and the
one I sent.

The one I sent was.
PROPOSAL Null Semantic Content
Create a rule section 0-1-0-3 titled 'Examples' with the following text
as delimited by EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
Text contained within the symbols [like this] has no semantic meaning and
can thus be used to illustrate and comment or exemplify as needed within
the rules.   They can thus be used by judges to understand the intent of
proposals and are the only way to express legislative intent.  They are
not however binding and have no effect on game state in and of themselves.
EXAMPLE
END PROPOSAL

I'm willing to abide by majority feeling as too who should retract theirs.
They are definately just about equivalent.

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:52:07 +0100

>They are definately just about equivalent.

That's uncanny, your proposal is almost identical (in principal) to mine!
I was not aware that you had submitted a similar proposal, i guess i wasn't
informed because i submitted mine first. As yours is worded much better I
think that i should perhaps retract as my proposal is certainly worded very
awkwardly and I see all sorts of unforseen difficulties :)

But as you say i am happy to go with any majority.  I think i just need to
practice my wording of proposals.  I think i'll base my next one on an
existing proposal which should make it ok.

Dan

ps. in case anyone is interested i recently discovered that "Hurray! vote
on petty liar." is an anagram of "The Revolutionary Party". (200 more where
that came from).

  /================================================================\
  | Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.  |
  | But on the other hand, you have different fingers. --  :)      |
  \================================================================/