spoon-business: nweek 1 results

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First off, some notes:

* I've fixed the Web page so that the "current rules" page actually shows
the current rules, and not any past revisions thereof.

* Ditto for the current proposals page.

* I'm working on a way to view historical changes to said documents, but
it's not there yet.

* I've chosen a creative interpretation of Rule 8: Since comments included
in [[ double brackets ]] aren't considered part of the Rules per se, I'm
adding bracketed revision notes to the bottom of rules. For instance, the
bottom of the much-abused Rule 32 reads:

[[ Revised by 100/0, 114/0, 115/1 ]]

This week's voting log and results and stuff:

100/0 PASSED.
Created 20/1.
Created 31/1.
Created 32/1.

101/0 PASSED.
Created 124/0.
Created 125/0.

102/1 FAILED.

103/0 PASSED.
Created 4/1.
Created 11/1.

104/0 PASSED.
Created 19/1.
(2) No effect.
Created 104/2. (The way 103/0 and 104/0 are written, they may be mutually
exclusive, but I choose to apply both corrections while I can.)
Created 5/1.
(5) No effect. (The word 'premissible' does not appear in 5/0. Perhaps
you *meant* to change 12/0?)
(6) No effect.

105/0 PASSED (despite a nice effort at the last minute to prevent such)
Created 21/1.
Swallowed more aspirin.

106/0 PASSED.
Created 19/2.

107/0 FAILED.

108/0 PASSED.
Created 4/3.
Created 11/2.
Created 8/1.

109/0 FAILED.

110/0 FAILED.

111/0 PASSED.
Created 18/1.
Created 19/3.

112/0 PASSED.
Created 22/1.

113/0 PASSED.
Created 22/2.
Created 27/1.

114/0 PASSED.
Created 32/2.

115/1 PASSED.
Created 32/3.

116/0 PASSED.
More aspirin ingested.
Created 126/0.
Created 127/0.
Created 128/0.

117/0 PASSED.
Created 129/0.

118/0 FAILED.

119/0 PASSED.
Created 19/4.

120/0 FAILED.

At the end of nweek 1, there were no rules defining in what order these
effects should take place. Therefore, I deem that they all take place
simultaneously (because that way 124/0 can be considered to be "in
effect", points can be awarded via that rule, and happiness can reign over
the land).

This means that scoring shall be handled based on the Rule 124/0 for all
proposals.

A whole bunch of d6's are being rolled, and I'm wishing I'd added a system
for keeping track of proposals' owners.

Antonio scores 10 points for 100/0.
Rob scores 11 points for 101/0.
Rob loses 4 points for 102/1.
Rob scores 13 points for 103/0.
Iain scores 14 points for 104/0.
Joerg scores 4 points for 105/0.
Antonio scores 9 points for 106/0.
Antonio loses 1 points for 107/0.
UIN scores 11 points for 108/0.
UIN loses 1 points for 109/0.
UIN loses 4 points for 110/0.
UIN scores 13 points for 111/0.
UIN scores 10 points for 112/0.
UIN scores 17 points for 113/0.
UIN scores 8 points for 114/0.
Rob scores 11 points for 115/1.
Joerg scores 16 points for 116/0.
Joerg scores 7 points for 117/0.
Chess loses 2 points for 118/0.
Joerg scores 12 points for 119/0.
Jesus loses 4 points for 120/0.

Scores:

Antonio		+19, -1 (18)
Benjamin	0 (0)
Iain		+14 (14)
Jesus		+0, -4 (adjusted to 0)
Joerg		+39, -0 (39)
Chess		+0, -2 (adjusted to 0)
Octagon		0 (0)
Rob		+35, -4 (31)
Turgul		0 (0)
UIN		+59, -5 (54)

The various parties that attempted to create points, banking on Rule 21
being revised, have notations next to their names in the roster, to the
effect of:

"(This player may or may not own X points independent of eir score.)"

Since we now have a rudimentary judicial system, I'll leave it up to the
courts to decide whether those actions were legal.

Vote counts:

(Y/N) Proposal N/R (Author)
(6/3) Proposal 100/0: Cleaning up (Antonio)
(7/2) Proposal 101/0: Scoring (Rob)
(3/6) Proposal 102/1: Bucks (Rob)
(9/0) Proposal 103/0: Revisiing the typos (Rob)
(6/3) Proposal 104/0: More Typo Corrections (Iain)
(6/3) Proposal 105/0: Clean up scoring (Joerg)
(8/1) Proposal 106/0: Proposal revision (Antonio)
(3/6) Proposal 107/0: Rules revision (Antonio)
(7/2) Proposal 108/0: I wish you wouldn't say that. (UIN)
(4/5) Proposal 109/0: When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. (UIN)
(2/7) Proposal 110/0: Our physical shells are rotting. (UIN)
(6/3) Proposal 111/0: Strictly psychosomatic. (UIN)
(5/4) Proposal 112/0: Say something once, why say it again? (UIN)
(9/0) Proposal 113/0: Did you never call? I waited for your call. (UIN)
(6/3) Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens. (UIN)
(7/2) Proposal 115/1: I demand order! (Rob)
(5/4) Proposal 116/0: Create a judicial system (Joerg)
(5/4) Proposal 117/0: Create a statute of limitation (Joerg)
(4/5) Proposal 118/0: Whee! (Chess)
(7/2) Proposal 119/0: Only players can make proposals (Joerg)
(2/7) Proposal 120/0: Max 3 Proposals per NWeek (Jesus)

Note that no rule says I'm required to reveal who voted how, when votes
are submitted privately to me. (31/1 says I shan't reveal them until after
the close of voting, but it doesn't require me to do so afterwards.)

There are already three proposals on the ballot for nweek 2. Voting for
nweek 2 will be from 22-24 December.

The object lesson for this week: Assuming none of those created points end
up affecting anything, UIN has taken a small lead, showing that shotgun
legislation is in fact a valid tactic.

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/

"Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu