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

["Mike McGann" <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure that this would totally fix the problem. The first part
of the proposal only changes  things if there is a defined conflict,
and both conflicting proposals pass, and both tie on strength. If one
proposal is assigned to conflict with another, the one with the most
"votes" wins by the current rules and that makes sense. Proposal order
to resolve ties does not make sense. If two proposals tie on strength,
there is no consensus, and they both should fail.

The second part of the proposal could just lead to a continuous leap
frog situation and adds complexity. Power in the ordering comes when
proposals that logically conflict are not defined to conflict. For
example, lets say there are the following two proposals that want to
change the name of the game:

P1: The name of this game is Ninja Nomic
P2: The name of this game is Pirate Nomic

If they both pass, P2 is the effective one due to ordering and
basically "overwrites" the earlier proposal. Reshuffling the order
doesn't resolve the conflict or remove the power by overwriting. What
should happen is that the two should be marked as conflicting. If the
author of P2 is unwilling to label it as conflicting (and is not
required to do so), trying to get a consensus to make it conflict
would be tricky. Since it can be a judgment call, I'm not sure how
that can be done in a timely, easy manner that isn't open to abuse.

- Hose

On 10/31/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{
> Amend rule 2-2, under the heading "Conflict Culling", to read:
> {{
> When Conflict Culling occurs, every Open proposal is processed in descending
> order of Strength, and in ascending order of Proposal Number when Strength
> is equal. When a proposal is processed in this manner, if it is Won, then
> every proposal that Conflicts with it becomes Lost.
> }}
>
> [[The way Conflict Culling reads currently, conflicting proposals with equal
> strength are processed in descending order of Proposal Number, meaning
> proposals submitted later are processed first and can knock out earlier
> ones...]]
>
> [[This fix allows a player whose proposal is targeted directly by a proposal
> submitted later (or even indirectly, i.e. they happen to contradict each
> other) to modify his own proposal and declare it in conflict with the later
> proposal. As long as the original proposal passes, the later one is not a
> threat unless it can muster more strength, in which case the original
> proposal should logically fail anyway...]]
>
> Add a paragraph to Rule 2-2, under the heading "Submission and Revision",
> that reads:
> {{
> If, in the Chairman's judgment, a revision radically alters the nature or
> purpose of a Pending Proposal, he may reassign it a new Proposal Number
> greater than those of all other Pending Proposals. Any player may, with 1
> more supporter than objections within 2 ndays, force the Chairman to take
> such action.
> }}
>
> [[This should prevent players from "reserving" low proposal numbers by
> submitting bogus proposals early in the week, just in case they might
> eventually need to conflict with something later, unspecified for the
> moment...]]
> }}
>
> Billy Pilgrim
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss