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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yep. Higher strength rule does take precedence. But it could happen that two
proposals have even strength, especially with the low voter turnout we've
been getting, and it could even happen in situations with two diametrically
opposite proposals, given the existence of devices to alter vote power now.
If strength is equal, then proposal number order matters. In the current
ruleset, the proposal with a higher number (meaning it was submitted later)
gets to defeat the earlier proposal if there are conflicts listed. Hose
pulled a switch and bait on Wooble earlier this nweek, giving us one example
of a proposal introduced explicitly to target an earlier proposal submitted
by someone else. Had he listed them as conflicting in his proposal
submission, his proposal could take precedence over the other, earlier,
proposal. I don't think that should be, i.e. among 2 conflicting proposals
with equal strength, the one submitted first should take precedence.

Billy Pilgrim

On 11/1/07, 0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the higher strength rule take
> precedence anyway?
>
> 0x44617368617368;
>
>
> Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> > I originally wanted a way to force (by support and objection or
> something)
> > authors to accept conflicts onto their proposals that are pointed out by
> > others. But then I looked again and my interpretation of the conflict
> rules
> > is now that if 2 rules are in conflict, only one need have a conflict
> clause
> > in order to make the conflict rules apply. As a matter of fact, having a
> > conflict clause on one's own proposal cannot hurt its chances, as if my
> > proposal contains a note that it conflicts with yours, then you proposal
> is
> > struck down if my proposal passes with higher strength, but there is no
> > possibility of my proposal being struck down by yours unless you also
> apply
> > a conflict to it. It's in your advantage to do so, the way I see it. And
> the
> > second part of what I'm proposing here basically is there to prevent
> someone
> > from reserving a low proposal number in order to gain an advantage in
> such
> > conflict if that comes up. Though it does seem to be open to abuse by
> the
> > Chairman...
> >
> > Billy Pilgrim
> >
> > On 11/1/07, Mike McGann <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss