Re: [s-d] @0x44

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Hird <
> penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:32, 0x44 wrote:
>>
>>  If you look back on the archive, you'll notice that historically the MoC
>>> announced what number a proposal was.
>>>
>>
>> Hm. Alright. Doesn't seem very neccessary to me, though.
>
>
> Used to be that rule numbers mattered. They still should, technically, in
> that proposals with lower numbers are tallied first. This means that the
> passing of a lower-numbered proposal can prevent the effects of a
> higher-numbered one (e.g. by destroying the rule referred to by the
> higher-numbered one) or that the higher-numbered one passing can clobber the
> changes from the lower-numbered one, which has happened several times in the
> past. Sometimes deliberately iirc. The recent practice of not numbering
> rules immediately has led to several cases of arbitrary numbering, with
> proposal numbers not necessarily reflecting submission order. I don't think
> anything in recent history has been affected by this, but it's good practice
> to number them as they go.


Also I think conflict culling used to give priority to lower-numbered rules
if two conflicting rules ended up with equal strength.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss