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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 22, 2006, at 5:49 AM, Andy Jones wrote:

>>> Why should changing some irrelevant part of a rule affect it's  
>>> precedence?
>
> Oh! I see what you mean!
> Why would you want to change an irrelevant part of a rule?
> How could you make a rule that distinguished a relevant change from an
> irrelevant one?

I think be "irrelevant" e means "irrelevant to the issue under  
consideration". Consider the following two rules:

R1 (modified ndate 12.12) No player may submit more than one proposal  
per nweek.
R2 (modified ndate 11.12) Any player may submit a proposal at any  
time. A proposal passes if more than 50% of the votes on it were FOR.

Since R2 is older, it takes precedence over R1 by your rule, and so  
any player may submit a proposal at any time (regardless of how many  
they have submitted). Then in nweek 13, somebody proposes to change  
50% to 60% in R2. This changes R2's mod time, and suddenly R1 takes  
precedence. Thus, a proposal to alter the voting method inadvertently  
changes how many proposals a player can make in an nweek.

Also, with regards to two rules claiming precedence over each other,  
it's not hard to deal with - a third rule can simply say that when  
this happens, both claims are ignored and precedence is settled in  
the usual manner. Barring that, you call a Judge to decide the issue.

An important distinction between Peter Suber's game of Nomic and B  
Nomic is that in general, B Nomic does not end. We have had players  
Win, and we have had times when the game broke due to paradox (at one  
point, almost every numeric attribute associated to a player became  
either undefined or infinite, but we couldn't tell which). But this  
has never ended the game. Thus, even if you regard two rules  
contradicting each other as a winning condition, we still need to be  
able to keep the game going. Traditionally we do this with some sort  
of Emergency Rule that provides a way to change the gamestate with  
the guarantee that a majority of all players can *always* invoke the  
emergency clause, no matter what else has gone wrong.

-- 
Wonko
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss