Jamie Dallaire on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:43:53 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [MoC] Ballot for nweek 137

On Jan 19, 2008 9:48 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I submit the following votes:
> > 301: No Proposalgangering (Billy Pilgrim)
> > http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Proposals/0301
> > Vote on 301: {{ AGAINST }}
> [[ There are valid reasons to have similar proposals ]]

Like what? Keep in mind my own interpretation of the proposed rule is that
it would be a disincentive to submitting duplicate proposals (the "nearly
identical" part providing a check against simple semantic manipulation), not
to submitting similar proposals that disagree on a specific point (and a
Priest shouldn't IMO rule guilty on a case like that). For example, had I
copied your Color Guard of Plaid proposal but changed the part of Four
Paranoid Peps to Two Paranoid Peps in order to keep it in line with the old
panic button rule, then that wouldn't be gangering, I don't think.

Billy Pilgrim
spoon-discuss mailing list