Subject: --ProtoBill--

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:52:03 -0000

Amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Each statute shall have a number for reference. No statute shall 
share the same number with another 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for all the comments on my earlier ideas. I had complete brain 
failure on the numbering scheme. 

I think this bill solves the two statutes/one number problem that I 
was initialy concerned about. I'll submit this in a day if no one has 
any concerns.

-Ryan

---

From: Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:46:06 -0700

>Amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read:

Is 4.2 a number? Is 4.2.1 a number? If we want to allow 
things like X.Y.Z, this will probably not work.
-- 
Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>

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

---

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:17:03 -0000

> things like X.Y.Z, this will probably not work.

Hrm your right, how about: 

Amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Each statute shall have a number for reference. No statute shall
be assigned a number that is identical to any other statute's 
number.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: miggs_ectomorph@y...
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:19:45 -0000

> Amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read:

Sounds OK.

---

From: Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:25:21 -0700

>Amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read:

Hmm...that still says "each statute shall have a number," and 
things like 4.9.1 aren't normally considered numbers. Of course, the 
rules currently say the same thing and have ids of that form.
I'd rather have it say something like "Each statute shall 
have a series of numbers, separated by periods, for reference." and 
so on.

Actually, what do people think about the fact that some rules 
currently have "numbers" like 4.9.1?
-- 
Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...>

---

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:15:58 -0000

--- In leg-nomic@y..., Henry Towsner <htowsner@s...> wrote:
> things like 4.9.1 aren't normally considered numbers. Of course, 
> the rules currently say the same thing and have ids of that form.

I don't mind the number system we have, but your right, we do need to 
come up with a better name for it. How about "Statutory Identifier"?

ProtoBill ver 3
This bill will amend Statute 3.3 in full, to read: 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Each statute shall have a Statutory Identifier for reference. No 
statute shall be assigned a Statutory Identifier that is identical to 
any other statute's Statutory Identifier.

A bill which proposes to create a statute shall specify the 
Statutory Identifier for such statute. If a statute is created or 
comes to exist which has no Statutory Identifier, The King shall 
assign it a Statutory Identifier by publishing a statement to that 
effect to all players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend Statute 4.4 in full, to read:
A bill may include one or more proposals to create a statute, repeal 
a statute, amend a statute, change the Statutory Identifier of a 
statute, or to overturn one or more Rulings of The Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the bill cleans up some language in 4.4 and 
corrects the only other statute with a reference to a 
statute's "number". I believe it to be consistant with the logic of 
the current 4.4 only more clear.

I feel can address what an Identifier is composed of later when there 
is more meat to the bones of the law and the nomic has taken a 
direction.

Comments?
-Ryan

---

From: sallyvacuum@y...
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:36:45 -0000

Looks good to me - "Statutory Identifier" doesn't quite have a poetic 
ring to it, but I can't think of anything better. And this is a 
legislature simulation - I think poetry will be rare. 

Cappocchi
--- In leg-nomic@y..., ryan_shannon@y... wrote:
> > have a series of numbers, separated by periods, for reference." 
and so on.
> .......

---

From: ryan_shannon@y...
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:38:30 -0000

> legislature simulation - I think poetry will be rare. 

It is a bit dry eh? We'll have to find poetry in its utility. :)

-Ryan

---

From: Jeff Weston <jjweston@m...>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:57:37 -0700

>legislature simulation - I think poetry will be rare. 

I think poetry will have a higher Public Opinion. Who wants to read dry
and boring rules? Poetic Rules sound much more interesting... :)

- - -
Jeffrey J. Weston
jjweston@m...
PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc
- - -

---

From: miggs_ectomorph@y...
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:00:32 -0000

> PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc

Right on!
Ectomorph