Subject: Proposal: Amend Rule 3

From: Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:42:45 -0600

Rule 3 currently states:

Players may submit Proposals by sending them to the DocNomic Mailing List.
A Proposal thus submitted becomes Pending. A Proposal consists of one or
more new proposed Rules, and/or a proposed amendment to one or more
existing Rules, and/or a proposed repeal of one or more existing Rules. 

I recommend the following amendment to Rule 3:

Players may submit Proposals by sending them to the DocNomic Mailing List.
A Proposal thus submitted becomes Pending. A Proposal consists of one new
proposed Rule, and/or a proposed amendment to one or more (if related)
existing Rules, and/or a proposed repeal of one or more (if related)
existing Rules. All new rules, amendments, and/or repeals contained within
a single Proposal email sent to the mailing shall be judged in whole.

===
This should clear up our record keeping a bit and make the proposals easier
to follow. A new rule shall be submitted in a single email by itself. I
mentioned one or more for amendments or repeals because there are many
cases where a new rule, amendment, or repeal depends on all the actions
being taken, not just one action.

---

From: Jeff Weston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:20:05 -0800

>a single Proposal email sent to the mailing shall be judged in whole.

This amendment adds restrictions to rule 3 that I don't think are really
neccessary. I feel the rule already properly handles multiple proposals in
one message, they should be ignored. A Point of Order should be able to
clear the problem up without amending the rule.

- - -
Jeffrey J. Weston
[email-masked]
PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc
- - -

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:05:56 -0000

> a single Proposal email sent to the mailing shall be judged in 
whole.

Hm, what's wrong with proposing to enact two new Rules? Is there 
anything very terrible about repealing two unrelated Rules (whatever 
"unrelated" means)? Surely if someone crammed a dozen disparate rule 
changes into one huge Proposal, they'd just run the risk of Doc 
rejecting the whole thing because he didn't approve of a particular 
element. And even if it all got the thumbs-up, they'd only stand to 
gain a relatively tiny Pill reward. I think we should leave the 
option open.

> to follow.

I don't know how aware we are of this, but the eGroups archive has a 
rather nice search feature, making it extremely easy to find the 
origin of particular game aspects:-

http://www.egroups.com/messagesearch/DocNomic?query=bloaty%20head

Provided we stick to a consistent subject line and give some clue as 
to what Proposals an email contains, I don't think they'll be that 
difficult to follow. If anything, multiple Proposals seem a good 
idea; Migraines aside, would people really prefer a slew of a dozen 
little emails to a single larger one? (And, indeed, an avalanche of 
individual reply threads to a single discussion?)

If you're sending similar-purpose messages several times in quick 
succession to the same target, combining them into a single email 
seems the obvious and useful thing to do, for both sender and reader, 
at least from my point of view. Hmm.

(I'd really like some Pills if anyone's got any spare, incidentally.)

Kevan

--
http://uncertain.org/~kevan
"Good quality stationery never comes to my house."

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 22 Dec 2000 15:04:26 -0500

Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]> writes:

(5 more SPs lost).

> a single Proposal email sent to the mailing shall be judged in whole.

REJECTED. All this does is to prohibit a Proposal from proposing more
than one new rule, or from amending or repealing more than one
unrelated rule. But "related" is a subjective concept, and it's
probably not hard to argue any two rules are somehow related. So the
only real effect is to prohibit proposal of multiple rules (even
related ones), and the benefit of that has not been persuasively
argued.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 22 Dec 2000 15:48:01 -0500

... and Ottis has FoR again.

-- 
- Doc