Re: [s-d] Massive Gamestate Recalculation 2, the Loose Interpretation version

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wooble wrote:

> Rule 5E33 and its predecessors going back to the start of the 2nd Era
> say something to the effect of:
> 
> {{
> When a new proposal is submitted, it is assigned the Proposal Number
> null. The Chairman is obligated to assign a new Proposal Number that
> is greater than all previously used Proposal Numbers to each proposal
> with a number of null.
> 
> /* Note that this doesn't include other things called Proposal Numbers
> from the distant past; the fact that five years ago there were
> proposals numbered in the thousands is irrelevant. */
> }}
> 
> The comment text has, by Rule 5E7 and its predecessors, no effect on
> the game at all.  It can be read, but doesn't make those old proposals
> irrelevant to numbering.  Thus, every vote cast since the start of the
> second era has been for a long-closed proposal, not the proposal for
> which it was purportedly voting, and the ruleset is quite different
> from what we think it is.

The rules don't require voters to identify proposals in any particular
fashion, just in some fashion.  Even if old proposals still have the
same numbers as current ones, "I vote for <number>" can be expanded as:

  a) "I vote for the current proposal numbered <number>"
  b) "I vote for all proposals numbered <number>"
  c) "I vote for the proposal numbered <number>"
  d) "I vote for a proposal numbered <number>"

a) works exactly intended.  b) works as intended, with an irrelevant
side effect.  c) and d) are disambiguated in favor of the current
proposal, because that's obviously what was intended.

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