Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal:

[0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the higher strength rule take 
precedence anyway?

0x44617368617368;


Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> I originally wanted a way to force (by support and objection or something)
> authors to accept conflicts onto their proposals that are pointed out by
> others. But then I looked again and my interpretation of the conflict rules
> is now that if 2 rules are in conflict, only one need have a conflict clause
> in order to make the conflict rules apply. As a matter of fact, having a
> conflict clause on one's own proposal cannot hurt its chances, as if my
> proposal contains a note that it conflicts with yours, then you proposal is
> struck down if my proposal passes with higher strength, but there is no
> possibility of my proposal being struck down by yours unless you also apply
> a conflict to it. It's in your advantage to do so, the way I see it. And the
> second part of what I'm proposing here basically is there to prevent someone
> from reserving a low proposal number in order to gain an advantage in such
> conflict if that comes up. Though it does seem to be open to abuse by the
> Chairman...
>
> Billy Pilgrim
>
> On 11/1/07, Mike McGann <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> I'm not sure that this would totally fix the problem. The first part
>> of the proposal only changes  things if there is a defined conflict,
>> and both conflicting proposals pass, and both tie on strength. If one
>> proposal is assigned to conflict with another, the one with the most
>> "votes" wins by the current rules and that makes sense. Proposal order
>> to resolve ties does not make sense. If two proposals tie on strength,
>> there is no consensus, and they both should fail.
>>
>> The second part of the proposal could just lead to a continuous leap
>> frog situation and adds complexity. Power in the ordering comes when
>> proposals that logically conflict are not defined to conflict. For
>> example, lets say there are the following two proposals that want to
>> change the name of the game:
>>
>> P1: The name of this game is Ninja Nomic
>> P2: The name of this game is Pirate Nomic
>>
>> If they both pass, P2 is the effective one due to ordering and
>> basically "overwrites" the earlier proposal. Reshuffling the order
>> doesn't resolve the conflict or remove the power by overwriting. What
>> should happen is that the two should be marked as conflicting. If the
>> author of P2 is unwilling to label it as conflicting (and is not
>> required to do so), trying to get a consensus to make it conflict
>> would be tricky. Since it can be a judgment call, I'm not sure how
>> that can be done in a timely, easy manner that isn't open to abuse.
>>
>> - Hose
>>
>> On 10/31/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>     
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> {{
>>> Amend rule 2-2, under the heading "Conflict Culling", to read:
>>> {{
>>> When Conflict Culling occurs, every Open proposal is processed in
>>>       
>> descending
>>     
>>> order of Strength, and in ascending order of Proposal Number when
>>>       
>> Strength
>>     
>>> is equal. When a proposal is processed in this manner, if it is Won,
>>>       
>> then
>>     
>>> every proposal that Conflicts with it becomes Lost.
>>> }}
>>>
>>> [[The way Conflict Culling reads currently, conflicting proposals with
>>>       
>> equal
>>     
>>> strength are processed in descending order of Proposal Number, meaning
>>> proposals submitted later are processed first and can knock out earlier
>>> ones...]]
>>>
>>> [[This fix allows a player whose proposal is targeted directly by a
>>>       
>> proposal
>>     
>>> submitted later (or even indirectly, i.e. they happen to contradict each
>>> other) to modify his own proposal and declare it in conflict with the
>>>       
>> later
>>     
>>> proposal. As long as the original proposal passes, the later one is not
>>>       
>> a
>>     
>>> threat unless it can muster more strength, in which case the original
>>> proposal should logically fail anyway...]]
>>>
>>> Add a paragraph to Rule 2-2, under the heading "Submission and
>>>       
>> Revision",
>>     
>>> that reads:
>>> {{
>>> If, in the Chairman's judgment, a revision radically alters the nature
>>>       
>> or
>>     
>>> purpose of a Pending Proposal, he may reassign it a new Proposal Number
>>> greater than those of all other Pending Proposals. Any player may, with
>>>       
>> 1
>>     
>>> more supporter than objections within 2 ndays, force the Chairman to
>>>       
>> take
>>     
>>> such action.
>>> }}
>>>
>>> [[This should prevent players from "reserving" low proposal numbers by
>>> submitting bogus proposals early in the week, just in case they might
>>> eventually need to conflict with something later, unspecified for the
>>> moment...]]
>>> }}
>>>
>>> Billy Pilgrim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spoon-business mailing list
>>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-discuss mailing list
>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>   

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss