| Jamie Dallaire on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:17:15 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] @0x44 |
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:32, 0x44 wrote: > > If you look back on the archive, you'll notice that historically the MoC >> announced what number a proposal was. >> > > Hm. Alright. Doesn't seem very neccessary to me, though. Used to be that rule numbers mattered. They still should, technically, in that proposals with lower numbers are tallied first. This means that the passing of a lower-numbered proposal can prevent the effects of a higher-numbered one (e.g. by destroying the rule referred to by the higher-numbered one) or that the higher-numbered one passing can clobber the changes from the lower-numbered one, which has happened several times in the past. Sometimes deliberately iirc. The recent practice of not numbering rules immediately has led to several cases of arbitrary numbering, with proposal numbers not necessarily reflecting submission order. I don't think anything in recent history has been affected by this, but it's good practice to number them as they go. I also think that informing the players of a proposal's number can be important. Consider the following scenario: ehird submits a Proposal entitled "foo". BP submits a Proposal entitled "CREAMPUFF", specifying a Conflict with "foo". ehird revises "foo", renaming it to "foot". Both pass. Crap, is there proposal culling to be done or not? Whereas if BP's proposal referred to ehird's by number, no problem. BP _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss