Subject: Oops

From: [email-masked]
Date: 06 Jul 2001 11:02:09 -0400

I just realized I've been failing to enforce the "Manageable Number of
Proposals" rule this week. However, I also just realized the
"Manageable Number of Proposals" rule was an NSFR and hence was
repealed at the start of this Round. Well, duhh.

It really should have been an FR. I guess my reasoning for making it
an NSFR was that I wanted to try it for a while before making it
quasipermanent. 

Anyway, if that rule were still in effect, the following Proposals
would have been Ignored:

Micheal Thomas's Smooth and Orderly Transition
How to Get More Stuff
Build that Economy!
Hubert Huang's The Proprietary Information Act

and Kevan Davis's Aftermath of the GNDT would have cost him 10 points.

I now reinstate the "Manageable Number of Proposals" rule as an FR.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:12:35 -0400 (EDT)

> I now reinstate the "Manageable Number of Proposals" rule as an FR.

I was wondering if it was intentional that a proposal could be something
that changed several rules at once. This means that I could propose
changes to all the rules and add 5 more new rules and repeal two rules, as
long as I sent them in 1 proposal I would be okay. Is that the intended
effect?

John -

---

From: "Hubert Hwang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:24:55 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., John Kipling Lewis <jklewis@u...> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote:
> 

I think that would be OK (speaking from personal opinion here) because 
the benefit gained from the alteration/insertion of new rules would be 
balanced by the fact that if any part of the proposal is not 
acceptable, the entire thing would be denied.

However, I'm not Doc, so I have no idea what he's going to say.

Oh well, let's wait for the ruling...

- Hubert Hwang

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 06 Jul 2001 13:20:20 -0400

> Oh well, let's wait for the ruling...

That would be OK because the benefit gained from the
alteration/insertion of new rules would be balanced by the fact that
if any part of the proposal is not acceptable, the entire thing would
be denied.

I think I heard that somewhere before.

Anyway, the intent of the *present* rules is to allow a proposal to
contain multiple changes to the rules. That's happened already in
this round, and I think it's a perfectly good way to operate.
Otherwise, for example, establishing DocNomic's use of the GNDT would
have required about four separate proposals, with the possibility of
nonsensical results if some were accepted and others rejected.

One should realize that it's bad form to have multiple *unrelated*
changes in a single proposal. (I'm thinking of drafting a guide to
what makes a good DocNomic proposal sometime.) In fact, such a
proposal might annoy me into rejecting it even though all parts are
acceptable. 

Likewise it's bad form to have multiple *related* changes spread
across multiple proposals, if they're fairly small changes and fairly
closely related. The hypothetical four different proposals
establishing DocNomic's use of the GNDT, for instance, would have been
bad form.

So you should include as many changes as are needed in one proposal,
but no more. More or less.

Another consideration is direct costs and benefits. At the moment
there's no reward in DocNomic for getting a proposal accepted, but
there could be. That would tend to reinforce breaking changes among
several proposals. On the other hand, as of this morning, there's a
penalty for submitting multiple proposals per dun. That will tend to
reinforce combining changes into one proposal.

There are people who object on principle to having proposals change
more than one rule. (See the Suber ruleset.) A proposal to enact
such a principle is always in order, of course.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:27:47 -0400 (EDT)

Thanks, that clears things up tremendously.

John -

---

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 18:18:48 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote:
> I just realized I've been failing to enforce the 
> "Manageable Number of Proposals" rule this week. 
> However, I also just realized the "Manageable Number 
> of Proposals" rule was an NSFR and hence was

I had thought about that, when I began to develop my new proposals. 
Then I had noticed that Kevan's Aftermath proposal was made within 2 
duns of his previous proposal without costing him points. That's 
when I looked at the Ruleset, and saw that it was missing. I had 
assumed that someone proposed it as a NSFRule. so I fired away.

> I now reinstate the "Manageable Number of Proposals" rule as an FR.

Now all we need is a way to gain points. I'd propose something, but 
I've got a while to wait. Anyone else have any ideas?

Michael
fnordCo
Bringing Illumination to the World

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:24:45 -0400 (EDT)

> I've got a while to wait. Anyone else have any ideas?

I have an idea, but I have to wait as well. It would be fairly simple to
allow players to trade plinks for points (one way trade.)

I'll suggest this in about a dun.

John -