Re: [s-b] Nweek 112 ballot

[Jimmy Kaplowitz <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry all for my relative silence; I know I don't have to be more
active, but I intended (and still intend) to do that. Hopefully you will
all consider the points I make below and possibly consider changing your
votes.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:14:44PM -0500, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> The following proposals are now Open for voting. You can see the text
> of the proposals at
> <http://b.nomic.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Proposals/Open>
> 
> 1	The Eras of B Nomic

FOR

> 2	Define Winning

FOR

> 3	it's the game of B!

ABSTAIN [[I have no npinion on bthis.]]

> 4	R.O.B.O.T.S. : Robots on Bnomic offer Total Suffering

AGAINST

> 5	Properties

FOR

> 6	Quote Fun

AGAINST

> 7	Conflict resoluton

AGAINST

> 8	Hard rules

AGAINST

> 9	Attributes

FOR

> 10	boring proposal precedence

FOR

> 11	Remove Revision Numbers

FOR

> 12	A winner is you!

FOR [[Yay points. A nice idea of Suber's.]]

> 13	Name-change props

AGAINST [[Majority rules is fine for this. And "it" is way too ambiguous.]]

> 14	Change bd's name

AGAINST [[We need more weird names in this game.]]

> 15	Finite search space

AGAINST [[But I _want_ to be able to name myself in Unicode!]]

> 16	Emergency Management Procedure

AGAINST [[There's no way to resolve a situation where some players
believe that a Forum or an Emergency Coordinator has in fact been agreed
upon while other players don't think agreement has been reached.]]

> 17	Judgment, the actual proposal

AGAINST [[The proposal removes The Administrator's authority to
interpret the current state of the game, but only gives a Judge the
power to interpret the rules, not the rest of the game state. For
example, there is nobody who could adjudicate a dispute over who is a
Player. Admittedly this is determined by rules and facts combined, but
only the rules are up for Judging, so factual disputes could cause
problems.

Also, there is an odd loophole where a Judge who has already passed
Judgment and Resolved the RFJ can then step down from office, even
several nweeks later (possibly with a bribe or other Game Action
inducements in between from the original losing party), which
immediately resets the RFJ's state from Resolved to Pending, causing a
readjudication of the issue. This is bad.]]

> 18	you must be able to retract your proposal

AGAINST [[Amending to the empty string or some ineffectual proposal is
more fun and suffices perfectly well, plus this might cause things to
pass unexpectedly after future rule changes.]]

> 19	Infinite search space

FOR

> 20	Retroactive thing.

FOR [[Excitingness. I do understand it. The first time all of this
nweek's Proposals become Historical, assuming this Proposal Passes, then
all of its Game Actions occur right then. The fact that it subsequently
becomes Historical again with all players having their new Final Vote be
AGAINST is irrelevant; the game state changes have already occurred, and
there is no stated effect when a Proposal becomes Historical without
Passing. So, the only net effect this Proposal has is to make the other
Passed Proposals from this nweek occur in order of submission date. This
is either harmless or useful, so I think this is a Proposal worth
Passing.]]

- Jimmy
bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business