Subject: Point of Order: Ignore Multiple Proposals in one Message

From: Jeff Weston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:27:27 -0800

According to the naming scheme presented in rule 3, we have the following
sentence: "Each proposal must have in its Subject line the text:
"Proposal:" followed by a label for the proposal or it shall be ignored."

Clearly, one message with multiple proposals in it cannot meet this naming
convention. Kevan submitted the following proposals that did not following
this naming convention and yet they were not ignored: "Nothing Chronic",
"Fear Itself", "Nasty Cough You've Got There", "Bloaty Head", "Death,
Insanity, Rebirth", and "In the Psychiatrist's Chair".

I argue that all of these proposals should have been ignored according to
rule 3. BUT... It would be a real pain to go back and change events that
have already happened. I propose with this Point of Order that in the
future, multiple proposals in one email message are simply ignored.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:39:09 -0000

> "Proposal:" followed by a label for the proposal or it shall be 
ignored."

Which is actually a touch nonsensical, because Proposals don't *have* 
subject lines. Emails have them, but Proposals don't. And even then, 
there's no reason why you can't have a dozen Proposals with the same 
"label".

> convention.

Indeed. Careless. I hadn't realised that the subject-binding Proposal 
had passed. The peril of an Imperial Nomic where you get to read 
Proposals before they're judged. Guilty as charged.

> future, multiple proposals in one email message are simply ignored.

Mm. I suppose Doc could Proclaim that the passed Proposals are to be 
enacted retroactively, along with consequent impact on the gamestate. 
Not too painful.

Irony time, though:-

"Each Point of Order must have in its Subject line the text: "Point 
of Order:" followed by a label of the Proposal or Rule in reference 
or it shall be ignored."

I don't think you've given the "label" of a Proposal or Rule, have 
you? But I suppose Doc can make Proclamations regardless, if he feels 
like it, so it doesn't really make that much difference.

Kevan

--
http://uncertain.org/~kevan
"It's clichéd to be cynical at Christmas."

---

From: Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:44:04 -0600

Kevan should have asked for a pill in this message. Lose one soul point,
you addict, you. Doc shall remove it in the next Office Hours.

At 09:39 AM 12/21/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email-masked]
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Dec 2000 17:58:59 -0500

Jeff Weston <[email-masked]> writes:

> rule 3. 

Kevan's message had the form "Proposals: label / label / label...",
which fails to follow the form required in Rule 3 only in that there
is an extraneous "s" on "Proposal". Note that Rule 3 does not say the
label must *immediately* follow the text "Proposal:" (indeed, it
usually doesn't, since a space is usually inserted between the two),
so e.g. for the "Bloaty" proposal Rule 3 is satisfied by having the
word "Bloaty" somewhere after "Proposal:".

Admittedly the label within the message body for that proposal was
"Bloaty head" not "Bloaty". But Rule 3 does not preclude the
possibility of using one label in the subject line and a different
label elsewhere.

I find, then, that Kevan's message deviated from the Rule 3
requirement only in one trivial respect. By a strict reading of the
rules the extra "s" means those proposals should have been ignored,
but I believe it best to overlook such trivial infractions.

To be clear: I find that the rules allow submission of (and separate
judgements of) multiple proposals in a single email, provided the
subject line contains the text "Proposal:" and (later in the subject
line) labels for each of the proposals.

-- 
- Doc