Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Call for Judgment: Alternative solution from Purplebeard’s idea.

Fails after two days during hiatus with votes at 3-6. ~lilomar

Adminned at 22 Apr 2011 06:08:54 UTC

In Glossary rule “Numbers and Variables”
Change:

Unless otherwise specified, when “X” is a number, to spend X of a numeric value “V” means to subtract X from V (i.e. replace V with V-X); to gain X of a numeric value “V” means to add X to V; and to transfer X of a numeric value “V” from A to B means to subtract X from A’s V and add the amount A’s V was reduced by to B’s V. Unless otherwise specified, a rule that allows Sheep to transfer a numeric value only allows them to transfer that value from themselves to another Sheep (of their choice unless otherwise stated).

to:

Unless otherwise specified, when “X” is a number, to spend X of a numeric value “V” means to subtract X from V (i.e. replace V with V-X); to gain X of a numeric value “V” means to add X to V; and to transfer X of a numeric value “V” from A to B means to subtract X from A’s V and add the amount A’s V was reduced by to B’s V.
These actions may not be performed if their direct result (the result of the mathematical operation itself, before any other rule modifying it) would not be legal.
Unless otherwise specified, a rule that allows Sheep to transfer a numeric value only allows them to transfer that value from themselves to another Sheep (of their choice unless otherwise stated).

 

I hope I considered everything. The cons would be that this fixes the problem when we use “Spend”, But not in ant other contest.

Comments

Bucky:

04-20-2011 15:26:06 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

04-20-2011 17:01:31 UTC

for

lilomar:

04-20-2011 18:36:06 UTC

I had to stare at this for a few minutes before I was sure what it was doing. FWIW, the difference is that the proposed change adds the sentence:

These actions may not be performed if their direct result (the result of the mathematical operation itself, before any other rule modifying it) would not be legal.

Which, as far as I can tell, is identical to Josh’s CfJ, only differing in where in the Glossary the statement is.

Abstaining for now, because there may be something I missed, I’m going on 26 hours awake (curse you minecraft!).

ais523:

04-20-2011 21:00:35 UTC

I much prefer Josh’s fix, here. Abstaining for now, and will vote FOR or AGAINST depending on if that fails or passes.

Ely:

04-20-2011 21:32:34 UTC

It does not do the same thing as Josh’s.
This effects just the keywords “spend” and “gain” while the rest of numeric changes would go with the “change to 0” rule.
Sorry for the “change… to ...” but I didn’t want to say “the 4th bullet point” since there are many CfJ on the topic, there might be more soon, and you taught me not to trust rule numbers.

Minecraft? For some reason it has no appeal to me… It got boring after a while.

If Josh’s passes, this has no reason to exist, so Veto it.

Roujo:

04-21-2011 00:46:48 UTC

for MineCraft! =D

Also, you can’t VETO a CfJ - otherwise there would be no way to get rid of a Mad King.

Ely:

04-21-2011 12:49:04 UTC

Right. Then, you’ll have to vote against it, if you don’t want it.

Winner:

04-21-2011 15:05:02 UTC

for

Kevan:

04-21-2011 15:20:55 UTC

against Josh’s fix seems to cover it.

ais523:

04-21-2011 15:29:26 UTC

against in favour of Josh’s fix, which seems to be passing.

Chivalrybean:

04-21-2011 16:06:16 UTC

against baa

lilomar:

04-21-2011 17:05:44 UTC

against Per Chivalrybean

Ely:

04-21-2011 18:34:25 UTC

against Josh’s covers this. This was an alternative.

Roujo:

04-22-2011 01:42:06 UTC

CoV, then: against