[s-b] Fwd: [s-d] Proposal: Conflict resolution

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

[[Bollix.  wrong list. ]]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Nov 22, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Conflict resolution
To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>


Amended proposal: "Conflict resoluton"

1) Change rule 1-8 to add at the end:
{{Every rule has an amendment date.  This is a date, according to the
dating system set up in the rules.  There can only be one amendment
- Hide quoted text -
date per rule.}}

2) Change all existing rules to add, as its amendment date, the date
that the rule was last changed.

3) Change rule 2-2; add the following at the end:
{{Each rule created or amended by the proposal has its amendment date
updated to the date the proposal passed.}}

4) Add a new rule titled "conflict resolution":
{{When two or more rules conflict, one rule "wins" and thus takes
precedence over the others.

If one rule says it overrides the others, that rule wins; otherwise,
if one rule is of a type that overrides the other rules' type(s), then
that rule wins; otherwise, the rule with the oldest amendment date
wins.

If this rule conflicts with another rule, this rule wins.}}

On 11/22/06, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "creation date" was a typo.  I'll fix it in a minute.
>
> I put in the bit about types of rules to allow some headroom for
> further expansion (including but not limited to "hard rules" - but
> note: nowhere have I said that a hard rule overrides a soft one).
>
> I'm happy to revise the rule to use the "takes precedence" wording,
> although it sounds a bit vague to me.  Most rules aren't designed to
> be part-implemented, also.
>
> I agree you can always call a Judge.  But we don't have them at the
> moment, and besides a judge needs something to base a judgement ON.
> Any arbitary method for resolving conflicts is always going to be
> that.  So long as we know it is in place, we can design proposals with
> it in mind.
>
>
> On 11/22/06, antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Andy Jones <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:52:44 AM
> > > Subject: [s-b] Proposal: Conflict resolution
> > >
> > > Proposal: "Conflict resoluton"
> > >
> > > 1) Change rule 1-8 to add at the end:
> > > {{Every rule has an amendment date.  This is a date.  There can only
> > > be one amendment date per rule.}}
> > >
> > > 2) Change all existing rules to add, as its amendment date, the date
> > > that the rule was last changed.
> > >
> > > 3) Change rule 2-2; add the following at the end:
> > > {{Each rule created or amended by the proposal has its amendment date
> > > updated to the date the proposal passed.}}
> > >
> > > 4) Add a new rule titled "conflict resolution":
> > > {{When two or more rules conflict, one rule "wins" and the rest are ignored.
> >
> > What exactly is ignored in the "losing" rule, just the conflicting part or the whole rule ?
> > Usually in nomic this problem is handled by saying: "rule x takes precedence over rule y", this implies that any effects in rule y that are non-conflicting still happen.
> > What you are saying is basically "rule x exists and rule y does not count" which can lead to pretty unpredictable results IMHO.
> >
> > >
> > > If one rule says it overrides the others, that rule wins; otherwise,
> > > if one rule is of a type that overrides the other rules' type(s), then
> > > that rule wins; otherwise, the rule with the oldest creation date
> > > wins.
> >
> > You have not yet defined a type that rules can have (I suppose this goes together with your proposed immutable rule proposal)
> > Also you have not defined the creation date for a rule (if that is indeed a separate value from the amendment date)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
>
> --
> It's Like This
>
> Even the Samurai
> Have teddy bears
> And even the teddy bears
> Get drunk
>


--
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk


-- 
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business