Talk:361 - Revision history

Dayd at 16:44, 6 January 2007

Dayd — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:44:06 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 6 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.-->		<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.-->
		+	I declare this proposal failed --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:44, 6 January 2007 (EST)
	== Proposer's summary and declarations ==		== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
	[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]		[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]

Finisterre: /* Debate */

Finisterre — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:52:54 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 30 December 2006
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Ok, that fit of pique is over, and I reworked it into a general "these types of rules are invalid and do not take effect" rule that can be amended later if anyone thinks of any. That was sort of the idea in the first place. It also prevents a rule from saying it simply takes priority over 361 (if it does, then 361 will win over later rules by virtue of rule [[210]])) [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 12:29, 28 December 2006 (EST)		Ok, that fit of pique is over, and I reworked it into a general "these types of rules are invalid and do not take effect" rule that can be amended later if anyone thinks of any. That was sort of the idea in the first place. It also prevents a rule from saying it simply takes priority over 361 (if it does, then 361 will win over later rules by virtue of rule [[210]])) [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 12:29, 28 December 2006 (EST)

		+	I think this proposal would negate Proposal 360, since popularity is pretty explicitly awarded to players depending on how they vote. Also, is preventing this something we need (or indeed want) to set in stone? Wouldn't it be better to 'discourage' it by having penalties, or saying judges and office holders can't gain rewards in this manner? --[[User:Finisterre\|Finisterre]] 13:52, 30 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Chuck: /* Debate */ fit of pique over, try this version on now

Chuck — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:29:58 GMT

Debate: fit of pique over, try this version on now

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 28 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)		You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)
-
-

	Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)		Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)

	I like the self reference ;) "This rule takes precedence over itself" I have no idea what that means, but I like it. But I do understand where you are going with the rule and think that it is useful. How about "No rule shall solely reward or punish the Players that voted on it. (i.e. Anyone who voted for this proposal gains 100 points.)" I think that sums up what you wanted to do, but maybe not. But it would allow "Anyone who voted for an odd number proposal gains 100 points" this being an odd number you'd still get your points. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)		I like the self reference ;) "This rule takes precedence over itself" I have no idea what that means, but I like it. But I do understand where you are going with the rule and think that it is useful. How about "No rule shall solely reward or punish the Players that voted on it. (i.e. Anyone who voted for this proposal gains 100 points.)" I think that sums up what you wanted to do, but maybe not. But it would allow "Anyone who voted for an odd number proposal gains 100 points" this being an odd number you'd still get your points. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Ok, that fit of pique is over, and I reworked it into a general "these types of rules are invalid and do not take effect" rule that can be amended later if anyone thinks of any. That was sort of the idea in the first place. It also prevents a rule from saying it simply takes priority over 361 (if it does, then 361 will win over later rules by virtue of rule [[210]])) [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 12:29, 28 December 2006 (EST)
		+
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Dayd: /* Debate */

Dayd — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:02:42 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 28 December 2006
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)		Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)

-		+	I like the self reference ;) "This rule takes precedence over itself" I have no idea what that means, but I like it. But I do understand where you are going with the rule and think that it is useful. How about "No rule shall solely reward or punish the Players that voted on it. (i.e. Anyone who voted for this proposal gains 100 points.)" I think that sums up what you wanted to do, but maybe not. But it would allow "Anyone who voted for an odd number proposal gains 100 points" this being an odd number you'd still get your points. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Chuck: paradox anyone?

Chuck — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:33:08 GMT

paradox anyone?

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 27 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)		You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+
		+
		+	Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Applejuicefool at 14:15, 27 December 2006

Applejuicefool — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:15:39 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 27 December 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Wouldn't the rule prohibiting retrospective effects prohibit the awarding of points for an action in the past? "...to players who voted FOR..." Seems dubious. But correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:Finisterre\|Finisterre]] 09:42, 27 December 2006 (EST)		Wouldn't the rule prohibiting retrospective effects prohibit the awarding of points for an action in the past? "...to players who voted FOR..." Seems dubious. But correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:Finisterre\|Finisterre]] 09:42, 27 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Finisterre at 13:52, 27 December 2006

Finisterre — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:52:46 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 27 December 2006
Line 14:		Line 14:

	All right, it's very simple after this edit. The fact that it's only the self-reference case should be obvious now. I realized I didn't need to say anything about all the various types of votes, because if a proposal punished "no" voters or even non-voters, that would still be preferential treatment to the "yes" voters. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 00:29, 22 December 2006 (EST)		All right, it's very simple after this edit. The fact that it's only the self-reference case should be obvious now. I realized I didn't need to say anything about all the various types of votes, because if a proposal punished "no" voters or even non-voters, that would still be preferential treatment to the "yes" voters. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 00:29, 22 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Wouldn't the rule prohibiting retrospective effects prohibit the awarding of points for an action in the past? "...to players who voted FOR..." Seems dubious. But correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:Finisterre\|Finisterre]] 09:42, 27 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Chuck: /* Debate */

Chuck — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:29:38 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:29, 22 December 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	I don't know...maybe it's just me but I read this and it sounds like rule [[346]] or any other rule that awards points would be invaild due to this. I read your summary and don't think the rule says what you intend it to say. I think something along the way of "A rule may not be narrow in scope as to only effect the out come of its vote" or something like that. Obviously I haven't put as much thought into it as you, but I think it needs to be reworded. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:41, 21 December 2006 (EST)		I don't know...maybe it's just me but I read this and it sounds like rule [[346]] or any other rule that awards points would be invaild due to this. I read your summary and don't think the rule says what you intend it to say. I think something along the way of "A rule may not be narrow in scope as to only effect the out come of its vote" or something like that. Obviously I haven't put as much thought into it as you, but I think it needs to be reworded. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:41, 21 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	All right, it's very simple after this edit. The fact that it's only the self-reference case should be obvious now. I realized I didn't need to say anything about all the various types of votes, because if a proposal punished "no" voters or even non-voters, that would still be preferential treatment to the "yes" voters. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 00:29, 22 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Dayd: /* Debate */

Dayd — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:41:16 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, 22 December 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->		<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->
	Debate on this proposal will close 00:01, 01 January 2007 (EST)		Debate on this proposal will close 00:01, 01 January 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	I don't know...maybe it's just me but I read this and it sounds like rule [[346]] or any other rule that awards points would be invaild due to this. I read your summary and don't think the rule says what you intend it to say. I think something along the way of "A rule may not be narrow in scope as to only effect the out come of its vote" or something like that. Obviously I haven't put as much thought into it as you, but I think it needs to be reworded. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:41, 21 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Chuck: /* Debate */

Chuck — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:05:09 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 21 December 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->		<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->
-		+	Debate on this proposal will close 00:01, 01 January 2007 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 28 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)		You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is [[107]]. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)
-
-

	Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)		Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)

	I like the self reference ;) "This rule takes precedence over itself" I have no idea what that means, but I like it. But I do understand where you are going with the rule and think that it is useful. How about "No rule shall solely reward or punish the Players that voted on it. (i.e. Anyone who voted for this proposal gains 100 points.)" I think that sums up what you wanted to do, but maybe not. But it would allow "Anyone who voted for an odd number proposal gains 100 points" this being an odd number you'd still get your points. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)		I like the self reference ;) "This rule takes precedence over itself" I have no idea what that means, but I like it. But I do understand where you are going with the rule and think that it is useful. How about "No rule shall solely reward or punish the Players that voted on it. (i.e. Anyone who voted for this proposal gains 100 points.)" I think that sums up what you wanted to do, but maybe not. But it would allow "Anyone who voted for an odd number proposal gains 100 points" this being an odd number you'd still get your points. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:02, 27 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Ok, that fit of pique is over, and I reworked it into a general "these types of rules are invalid and do not take effect" rule that can be amended later if anyone thinks of any. That was sort of the idea in the first place. It also prevents a rule from saying it simply takes priority over 361 (if it does, then 361 will win over later rules by virtue of rule [[210]])) [[User:Chuck\|chuck]] 12:29, 28 December 2006 (EST)
		+
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->