Subject: Re: Bill 1

From: mittnox@y...
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:37:55 -0000

> Due to patriotic fervor, Public Opinion shall be calculated 
normally and
> then modified by +10 (to a maximum of +50) during Founder's Day.

[snip]

> Might I ask, Mittnox, what you mean by the second paragraph? Is it 
that
> whatever PO a bill gets assigned initially is automatically +10? 
Or is
> it that every recalculation of PO has a +10 effect in addition to 
its
> normal effect? (Some heinous bills could be passed next year if 
it's
> the latter, but that might be the point.)

My intent was that an initial PO would be calculated normally and 
then 10 would be added. Further adjustments, due to political 
capital, etc., would then occur normally (ie one +10 per bill).

> Also, the rules don't make this a huge deal, but the bill suggests 
no
> statute number. If it passes, I get to assign one, which is fine, 
but I
> might place it elsewhere than would you. (I really have no 
objection to
> game custom being that I assign statute numbers, if that's the way
> Parliament wants to go. The ruleset might then be less chaotic, 
after a
> few months of additions and subtractions.)

I have no problem with you assigning a Statute number for this bill. 
I don't see an appropriate section for this bill (Courts, since it 
sets up a Court holiday? Public Opinion, since it affects PO?) Maybe 
there should be a new section, Miscellanea or something. I don't know 
how one would go about setting up a new section.

Mittnox

---

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:21:25 -0000

normally and
> then modified by +10 (to a maximum of +50) during Founder's Day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps modifying the above to something like:

Due to patriotic fervor, each bill's Public Opinion shall gain a one 
time increase of +10 PO. This increase shall not set the bill's PO 
greater than 50.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'de like to suggest that we use some sort of protoposal discussion 
for bills. As this bill sits, my constituants require me vote it down 
simply because the above line item is confusing. Presubmission 
discussion could cut down on needless bill creation.

I feel we'de also benefit from a bill numbering law. I'll write a 
proposal up later tonight.

--Ryan

---

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:45:16 -0000

> proposal up later tonight.

In hindsight while we do have a numbering system for bills and 
statute, the statutes portion is a bit vague as to how the statutes 
are numbered. 

"Statute 3.3
Each statute shall have a number for reference; all statutes with the 
same statute number shall be considered to compose the same statute. 
A bill which proposes to create a statute shall specify the number 
for such statute. If a statute is created or comes to exist which 
has no number, The King shall assign it a number by publishing a 
statement to that effect to all players."

While our majesty is one of considerable honesty and integrity a less 
ethical monarch could assign a new statue the same number as an 
existing one and cause all kinds of noise and headaches.

It also seems we have a basic (yet tricky) organizational method for 
our statutes. 

The format is 'X.Y.Z' where (as I read it):
X = Logical rule group division
Y = Logical subdivision
Z = if the Y is greater than 10 Z, is incremented and Y is set to 9 
(bleh) 

Perhaps an amendment to 3.3 that:

1) asks our king to find the correct Logical division for the new 
statute
2) Assigns the next available logical subdivider identifier. 
3) renumbers the three or four bills that have the Z identifier to 
their correct, sequential X.Y assignment.

This is a tricky one but one I think we'll be glad to have dealt with 
while our MP count is small.

--Ryan

---

From: Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:51:01 -0700

>Z = if the Y is greater than 10 Z, is incremented and Y is set to 9

I've always been a fan of hierarchical rulesets, and I see no 
reason to limit ourselves to only two or even three layers. My 
experience has been that it is often helpful to be able to sort 
things to an arbitrary depth (Macronomic had five levels of depth in 
a few places).
-- 
Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>

Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law