RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth limit

[Jorg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The Legislative Zealot rule
>          (a) has incorrect math

I'll fix that.


>          (b) is designed to allow someone to make 40 proposals if
>          they want
> 
> Point (b) is evidenced by the tiny rider at the bottom of the
> proposal that repeals Bandwidth Rationing.

Yes, it is. But with 40 proposals, you'll become a judicial zealot and
as such, you're almost certain to lose points.


> It is *not* a better bandwidth limit, because THERE IS NO LIMIT.
> There's a deterrent, which is not at all the same thing as a limit.

Yes, that's because I want no strict limit.

Actually, I think a much better solution to the problem would be to
have shorter nweeks, multiple voting periods, or to vote on proposals
at once (though that creates the problem of overlapping voting
periods, which might be confusing). Then you could vote on proposals
as soon as the proponents believe they're ready, and you don't have to
re-read all of them at once because they're all on one giant ballot
and some of them have been discussed more than a week ago.

However such a reform would be a quite radical one and I'm not sure if
you could propose that with just three proposals while still keeping
the more controversial parts optional. So our short-term solution even
prevents a (possible) long-term solution.


> Bandwidth Rationing is a Good Thing(TM).

Then you'll have to vote against my proposal because I'm not going to
change that.

The problem with a bandwith limit is that it doesn't generate less
proposals, it just generates longer ones. One of them is my own one, I
might have splitted the proposal into a "Titles" proposal and a
"Zealot" proposal" (or I could have made the repeal clause a seperate
proposal), but I couldn't do so because I'm limited to three
proposals. There seems to be at least one player (Bean) who might vote
against the proposal due to this combination, even though he likes the
Titles part.

Proposal 236 is another example, I might vote against it because I
don't like all of its parts. Unfortunately, Scoff! also has no
proposals left to split things up. This could actually lead to a
situation where judges keep their force-of-law power, which is *not*
what I want.


Besides, you're always free to vote against all proposals of someone
who in your opinion makes too many of them.


Joerg