Re: [s-b] Consultation: Beast voting

[ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/02/2008, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The three main fixes I can think of right now, none of them perfect:
>
> - give "essential" rules (defined by the beast proposal last nweek, but that
> property could be extended or rescinded from/to others) priority over
> non-essential rules, except where explicitly noted by a non-essential rule.
>
> - give rules with a lower rule number precedence over rules with a higher
> rule number (except where specifically noted otherwise). Has the advantage
> of leaving no conflict unambiguous rather than just specifying 2 tiers as
> above, but there are probably better more sensitive ways of doing this.
>
> - attributing different levels of precedence or importance to rules on an
> individual basis (see clearance levels in paranomic-xp).

Yes, exactly. Give each rule a level and say that higher-level rules
take precedence over lower-level rules and within each level, rules
with a lower rule number take precedence over rules with a higher rule
number, and also say, optionally, that rules of a certain level are
"essential". :-)

Hey, a proposal could be drafted up already. I submit a proposal,
titled "i pwnz u", with the following text:

{Add a Rule, named "Rule Powers and Precedence", with the following text:

{There is an Attribute called Power with a Scope of all Rules, a Range
of all rational numbers from 0 to 1 inclusive, and a Default Value of
1/2. The Rulekeeper is responsible for maintaining a Public Display of
the current Powers of Rules.

If two Rules of different Powers contradict each other, the one with a
higher Power takes precedence, unless the one with a higher Power
states otherwise.

If two Rules of the same Power contradict each other and exactly one
says it takes precedence over the other, that one takes precedence. If
two Rules of the same Power contradict each other and exactly one says
the other takes precedence over it, that other one takes precedence.

If two Rules of the same Power contradict each other and the above
paragraph does not state which takes precedence, the one with a lower
number takes precedence.

This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules that determine
precedence of Rules.}

Set the Powers of "Rule Powers and Precedence" and "In Case of Emergency" to 1.}

The "if the above paragraph does not state" thing does seem rather
icky, as does perhaps the entire Rule itself, but I think
rather-ickiness is no big reason to strike down a proposal. What I'm
not so sure about is whether "In Case of Emergency" really should have
a Power of 1.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business