Subject: Proposal: Colors and Precedence

From: "Britta Koch" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jun 2001 13:56:56 CEST

Amend Rule 6:

Strike the last 2 paragraphs. Instead, add:

1. Rules which are printed on brighter paper than another rule take
precedence over that rule. The order of colors is (brightest to
darkest): White, Yellow, Pink, Green, Blue.

2. Rules with earlier enactment dates take precedence over later rules
having the same color(where "INITIAL" is considered to be a date
earlier than any other enactment date).

3. Rules with lower rule numbers take precedence over higher-numbered
rules with the same enactment date and the same color.

Amend Rule 1001:

In the sentence "Newly-created documents are White unless their creator
specifies otherwise.", replace "White" with "Blue".

If this proposal is accepted, all Not-So-Fundamental Rules turn Green.
This paragraph then deletes itself.

Britta
-- 
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
\ /	ASCII Ribbon Campaign	[email-masked]
X	- NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.silverymoon.de 
/ \	- NO Word docs in e-mail "My other car is a cdr."

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:18:00 -0400 (EDT)

> This paragraph then deletes itself.

This rule would break "Pink Slip" if that document were in the filing
cabinet at the time.

John -

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Jun 2001 11:53:41 -0400

> This paragraph then deletes itself.

ACCEPTED.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Jun 2001 12:05:52 -0400

A couple of issues regarding this proposal:

(1) I've allowed it despite its doing something I complained about
before, namely, making a FR dependant on a NFR. The precedence
rule now makes no sense if (as will happen at the start of the
next round) the NFRs are repealed. I'll proclaim a fix later.

(2) This rule changes the color of several rules. I take the point of
view that this is not an amendment of those rules and therefore
does not change the enactment date or the location of those
rules. Admittedly one could argue otherwise, especially since
changing their color changes their priority. Anyone who feels I
made the wrong choice is welcome to submit a PoO.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:44:14 -0400 (EDT)

> made the wrong choice is welcome to submit a PoO.

Because changing the colour of rule 1004 can change the reading of the
rule, I feel that changing the colour of a rule is, in fact, ammending it
if rules can reference their own colour.

John -

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Jun 2001 16:38:43 -0400

> if rules can reference their own colour.

In what way does changing the color of Rule 1004 change its reading?

In particular (given that Rule 1004 was Blue and in your in-tray) how
does making it Green change anything?

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:00:40 -0400 (EDT)

> does making it Green change anything?

I'm using Rule 1004 as an example of a rule which references it's own
colour for an effect. What would occure if I put this document into
another players In box and then changed all documents to pink. Have I
ammended that rule? I think I have, because the rule is now read in a
different way.

If Rule 1004 had been written with less care, changing it's colour may
have resulted in keeping the rule from functioning, just as if the rule
had been ammended.

John -

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 30 Jun 2001 22:48:32 -0400

> have resulted in keeping the rule from functioning, just as if the rule

Changing the effect of a rule is not the same as amending it. (Amend
has one 'm', by the way.) I could, for example, write a rule that
says, "If a player whose name begins with B gets a pink document in
eir in-tray, e gains 1000 points. This rule supercedes all other
rules." Such a rule would keep Rule 1004 from functioning, at least
for players like Bob and Barney, but it is not what is generally
considered an amendment to that Rule.

Or Rule 1004 could have been written to say "If any Player has this
Document in their In-Tray and Jenna Bush is wearing Pink, then that
Player loses 1000 Point..." If Jenna Bush appears one day in a pink
dress and another day in a blue dress, has she amended the rule? No;
the effect of the rule depends on something in the gamestate (the
color of Rule 1004 in the present game; Jenna Bush's clothing in the
imaginary one) and changing that thing in the gamestate merely changes
the rule's effect, not the rule itself.

What it boils down to, I think, is: Is a rule a piece of text, or is a
rule a document? If the former then "amending" a rule consists of
changing its text. If the latter, then there might be an argument for
saying "amending" a rule consists of changing any of the document's
properties, including color or location.

Rule 1001 says, "Each Rule is a Document". But should that statement
be taken literally, or should it be assumed that it's shorthand for
"Each Rule has a corresponding Document"? Support for the latter is
found in the same rule where it says "Whenever a Rule is repealed, it
goes to the Wastebin. (Rule Documents in the Wastebin are not
considered to be part of the Ruleset.) That is, the documents in the
Wastebin are Rule Documents but not Rules. But this is not a
particularly convincing argument.

Probably my main reason for wanting color and location changes not to
be amendments is the maintenance headache. All enactment dates would
have to be changed, and each would have to be changed again anytime a
document changes color or location. But of course that's not a legal
reason. On the other hand, it DOES give you a clue that if I end up
ruling in John's favor, there will be a Proclamation soon
following... 

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:14:04 -0400 (EDT)

Proposal: Amend Rule 1002

Append the following text to rule 1002 to create a new type of task:

Transform
A player may change the colour of any one document in their In-Tray. The
document is immediately moved to that players Out-Tray if it's colour
changes.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 02 Jul 2001 16:18:57 -0400

I find I must rule in favor of John's interpretation of the rules.
Reason: consistency. I already have renumbered rules by proclamation,
and when I have done so I have (sometimes!) changed the enactment date
to the date of the proclamation. I find it difficult to justify doing
so but not changing enactment dates when rule colors change. So, at
this time, the word "amend" must be taken to refer to any change to a
rule document, including its location, its color, or its number.

It will be difficult if not impossible to apply this ruling to all
such amendments retroactively. I will therefore apply it only to
amendments beginning with the ones John's PoO relates to (that is,
amendments caused by proposals or tasks which were not submitted
before the amendments in question.):

(1) 29 Jun 2001: by Britta's proposal, all NSFRs turn green. All
NSFRs (except the new 1005) move to Britta's out-tray and their
enactment dates change to 29 Jun 2001.

(2) 2 Jul 2001: by Kevan's task, Rule 4 moves to John's in-tray. Its
enactment date changes to 2 Jul 2001. (Location does not change
since this amendment was not caused by a Proposal.)

Side effect: Rule 1003 was in Britta's out-tray, not the Filing
Cabinet, when Micheal submitted eir proposal, so it does not go to
Micheal's in-tray. Rule 1001 if taken literally seems to suggest
Micheal should get two documents from the Filing Cabinet even if there
is only one there (but not if there are none there), but I'll
interpret it to mean that if there's one e gets one.

And now I issue a Proclamation:

In Rule 0 change

Each Rule shall begin with a unique, finite, nonnegative integer
number, a brief descriptive name, and its Enactment Date. The
Enactment Date of a rule is the date of its most recent amendment,
or the date of its addition to the Ruleset if it has never been
amended,

to 

Each Rule shall consist of a unique, finite, nonnegative integer
number, a brief descriptive name, an Enactment Date, a rule body,
and whatever additional information about the Rule is required by
the Rules. The Enactment Date of a rule is the date of the most
recent amendment to its body text, or the date of its addition to
the Ruleset if its body text has never been amended,

In Rule 1001 change

Whenever a Player's Proposal amends or creates a Rule, that Rule is
moved to the Player's Out-Tray.

to

Whenever a Player's Proposal creates a Rule, that Rule is moved to
the Player's Out-Tray. Whenever a Player's Proposal amends the body
text of an existing Rule, that Rule is moved to the Player's
Out-Tray.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:21:47 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., John Kipling Lewis <jklewis@u...> wrote:
> A player may change the colour of any one document in their 
> In-Tray. The document is immediately moved to that players 
> Out-Tray if it's colour changes.

I had been thinking of something similar, but was going to call the 
Task "Photocopying". I had also thought to impose a small point-
penalty for doing so, just to keep it a bit on the less-often side.

Michael

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:26:23 -0400 (EDT)

> penalty for doing so, just to keep it a bit on the less-often side.

I have no problem with eithe of these changes, if Doc wishes to implement
my proposal with these changes in mind.

John -

---

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:33:24 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote:
> [snip]

Does this mean that Kevan has won, according to Rule 1003?

He had had Rule 1000 in his in-tray, and Rule 1002 in his out-tray. 
Every other player has something either in eir in-tray or out-tray.

Michael

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 02 Jul 2001 22:24:45 -0400

> Every other player has something either in eir in-tray or out-tray.

Hmm. I do believe you're correct.

Sigh... I thought that win condition might be too easy.

So -- unless someone has a killer argument to re-reverse that Point of
Order, I guess we move on to Round 3.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 03 Jul 2001 10:58:21 -0400

> document is immediately moved to that players Out-Tray if it's colour

REJECTED, of course, since Round 2 has ended.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Kevan Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:18:17 -0000

> Hmm. I do believe you're correct.

Good lord. That's a bit disappointing.

> Sigh... I thought that win condition might be too easy.

Mm, I was expecting it to go more along the lines of players piling 
stuff into the In-Tray of anyone who was doing particularly well. 
Didn't consider a massive, accidental victory such as that one.

Not sure I'll be online enough to be much of a presence in Round 3, 
whatever it turns into, but it's probably worth mentioning that I've 
made a generic version of the gamestate-tracker we used in Round 1 - 
it's at http://uncertain.org/~kevan/cgi-bin/generic.cgi; I'll see if 
I can find time to Propose its implementation in the Ruleset 
tomorrow, then get around to giving people passwords if Doc approves 
it...

Kevan

--
http://uncertain.org/~kevan
"I'm still right here, where I always was."