Can we not transfer things? Leads to politics, which I hate.

can always repeal that one lol

Sorry Quaz, adults like to play politic games. Its like something that screws your head the older you get. In fact, you might want to stop playing BN altogether, because it is basically politics all the way through.

Well, I don’t mind, it just seems to result in some people becoming mad/unreasonable. I don’t know why, perhaps you could enlighten me?

There’s a concern with points-as-implemented and negative numbers.  We need a lower bound on points for this to work (This is true of my proposal, too: I hadn’t caught that points can go negative), or we need to be unable to spend into negative numbers.

Also, ‘both’ should be ‘all such’, in the case of sub-sub-etc. rules.

I would also prefer the two halves of this proposal to be proposed separately

@Excalabur: your first point is a non issue, per the glosary clarifies that one can only spend something if they have more than zero of it.

COV

Arth: Strongly disagree with you.  “Spend” means “Subtract price from value”, which is illegal in the case where the price is greater value is constrained to be nonnnegative.  The example text in the next bullet point is nonnormative, as it is an example of a value constrained to be positive (by default).

I read:

“No action may be taken which would require setting a gamestate variable to an illegal value. (e.g. spending X of a numeric value that must be non-negative when the subtraction would result in a number which is negative).”

How come that is not normative? It is written on the ruleset. Or are you also implying that in rule 1.2 the text:

“Anybody may apply to join BlogNomic (if he is not already playing)”

So, really I can apply to join Blognomic even if I’m already playing, because test in parenthesis does not count? And in which rule does it say so?

Even if we where to accept the curious proposition that we can selectively choose to ignore some rules because we do not think they are actually valid, you still have one other thing to consider:

The text “No action may be taken which would require setting a gamestate variable to an illegal value” is not in parenthesis, meaning you can probably agree with me that it is indeed part of a rule. Then, the example it cites as on how to apply such rule is basically (it’s even using the same vocabulary) the same thing written out on this proposal.

Given that it was at some point selected as an example on how to handle that rule, kinda makes me thing it should be a good, appropriate example. However, your position seems to place us on the strange situation that: we added some nonsense text, labeled like a rule example, which does not at all an example to its rule, but rather something completely irrelevant, placed there for kicks and giggles.

Ok, no, that sounds just too illogical to me, sorry.

Don’t worry, Excalabur. It seems fine to me.

Currently 7-3 passing

Can someone CoV, so we can pass this now and speed up the queue?