Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Votes

From: "Andy T Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:08:00 +0100

JT, in your prop 69 you have put:

Modify the rule titled "Tradable Objects" by replacing section 3) with the
following FIX delimited text
FIX
3) A player may transfer a positive quantity of tradable objects that e
holds to another player by notifying the Secretary responsible for that
type of object. A player may not transfer noninteger portions of a Tradable
Object, nor transfer more Tradable Objects than e holds.
FIX

Why have you done this? All the points are already covered. Notifying the
Secretary is stated in the preamble in section 6-0-1. Trading integer
quantities only  in dealt with in 2). And not trading more than is held is
dealt with in the original 3).
What does your proposed replacement achieve? It seems to be adding
redundency where there already is plenty. Wouldn't a better solution be to
repeal 6-1 (Since the majority opinion is that 6-0 is the prefered
implementation) and replace all occurances of "Physical Object" with
"Tradeable Object".

This is the main reason I really object to having multiple things in one
proposal, Had Philo proposed his things seperately, then we would have his
version of farms and mines, and my version of objects. It would have made
things a lot cleaner.

--
The Kid

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT)

>implementation) and replace all occurances of "Physical Object" with

Actually, not quite true.  There was one small difference between the two
proposals, and I prefered the wording of section 6-1's part 3 over the
part 3 in section 6-0-1.  I thought I'd gotten the redundancy, but might
have missed some.

I actually believe that there might be a reason to distinguish between
physical objects and generic tradeable objects in the future which is why
I left the terminology in place rather than just repealing section 6-1.

>version of farms and mines, and my version of objects. It would have made

While in principle I agree with you, in general, you get riders on
legislation in the real world all the time, so I don't think it's going to
go away anytime soon.  The question is, is the rider enough to make you
vote against the proposal, or are you willing to take the time to fix up
the rider later.

In this case, the latter seemed to be the opinion.

--JT

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