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

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 19, 2008 2:43 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

It is too subjective. I would consider your example to be gangering
even though you think not--without a "rule of thumb", I think it would
be a mess. An interesting twist would to make it a crime if a proposal
passes and it clobbers a change from a previous proposal, or if the
proposal is malformed in someway and can't be implemented. That can
objectively be determined.

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