Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:58:54 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Artificial Complements

On 2/5/08, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 4:32 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Okay, we have a problem.  My Proposal "Artificial Complements" failed,
> although the two Proposals whose changes it was supposed to merge
> passed.  The result was that the Necronomicon blueprint refers to
> Complements, but "Complement" is an undefined term.  This happened because
> >
> > 2 people voted against "Hose Will Vote For This".
> > 2 people voted against "All Your Artificial Bases are belong to us".
> > All 4 voted against "Artificial Complements", which was enough to make
> it fail.
> >
> > How can we keep this sort of thing from happening in the future?
> If two proposals conflict, they should have a Conflict listed.  If you
> think it's desirable for the effects of both to go through with
> necessary merging changes, you should submit a proposal that conflicts
> with both of them that fixes the problem.
> A procedure for adding conflicts to other players' proposals would
> probably help too, but as long as you can convince one of the 2
> submitters to do so it's not entirely necessary.

This isn't really an issue of conflicts, though. Well, I guess we could
have made Antonio's (artificial bases) and my (making undead folk) proposals
conflict, but there's really nothing in them that is incompatible other than
that antonio did not account for the possibility that my proposal would pass
in writing up his own proposal (by not including a provision making 5 and 2
complementary if needed). Codae saw this and attempted to fix the problem by
rewriting Antonio's proposal with the simple addition of 5 and 2 being
complementary and making that proposal dependent upon the two others. I
don't really see why people vote against such proposals when all they're
really trying to do is fix a bug resulting from two earlier proposals. Even
if one is against the earlier proposals, there's no real reason to vote
against the fix proposal since all it does is iron out kinks IF the other
proposals pass anyway.

It would, however, be a good idea to let players other than the author tag
conflicts onto a proposal (with some support or without much objection, so
people don't start tagging for nothing).

As for Codae's initial question, I'm not sure if there's a mechanism we
could implement to prevent this sort of thing.

At least, in this case, the problem isn't too too huge. The only issue is
that one of the modes of obtaining mojo is currently impossible to use.

Billy Pilgrim
spoon-discuss mailing list