Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] altering proposals

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:20:16 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Aidan McLoughlin wrote:
>At 09:42 20-06-98 -0700, you wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Towsner wrote:
>>Unfortunately Towsner, currently retracting a proposal doesn't refund you
>>commodities used.  That's one of the things I fixed in my recent proposal
>>which is why I believe Aidan asked the question.
>
>Thats right JT, so, is it ok for me to just say to the SoTruth what i would
>like to change in my proposal without losing my commodities which would
>sort of defeat the object?  This is a question to anyone by the way, not
>just JT.

Well, if I were asked to judge such a thing as CFJ, I'd probably reason
as follows.

I'd say that Section 0-0 doesn't come into play because referenda are
certainly part of the game-state, and Section 0-0's permissibility clause
only grants permissibility to actions external to the game state.

It also directly prohibits however changes to the gamestate except as
proscribed by the rules.

From section 3-1, Proposals
The Secretary of Truth may notify any player during the preactive stage of
eir proposal if eir proposal conflicts with any other currently preactive
proposal, and how e may change eir proposal to conform with the other.

That is the only reference I can find to changing a proposal, but it
describes a specific situation under which that change may be allowed.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that this would allow the changing of a
preactive proposal under any other situation.

If anyone disagrees with this analysis, I'd be interested in hearing
how/why?

I suggest just letting it go to vote, and perhaps noting what the error in
the proposal is publically.  It's possible that people will be lenient
enough to pass it as long as you fix the error with your next proposal (or
ask one of us to do so).

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Jason Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 13:34:56 -0500

>preactive proposal under any other situation.
Um. I don't believe that rule allows the SoT to actually *change* the text
of active proposals, just allows em to recommend changes to players. Which
e can do anyway. Which is why I always thought that wording was kind of
silly.

If it was intended to allow changes, it's ridiculously dangerous -
proposals should not be legally changable without starting a new voting
period, because otherwise you can just change the prop at the last minute
(while everyone is voting for it) and get omnipotence, or whatever.

My recommendation is: think very carefully before you propose. Proto and/or
ask questions and/or discuss, if you want.

- Philo
(Avid player, Macronomic)
[email-masked] -- http://kyogen.com/pascal/
"[Young lady, ] in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
   - Homer Simpson

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT)

>(while everyone is voting for it) and get omnipotence, or whatever.

Changes while it's pre-active aren't dangerous :)  They happen before the
voting period starts which is what I believe the above possibly allows.

However, you could be correct.  Regardless, it doesn't apply to this case.

--JT

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:05:11 -0700 (PDT)

>However, you could be correct.  Regardless, it doesn't apply to this case.

Except from what lambda said, it might.

Dan, I think between us we can figure out a compromise that works.  If you
end up retracting yours I will give you one of each commodity so that you
can still make a proposal.  I'm interested in which of my 3 proposals his
conflicted with.

--JT

---

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 22:39:21 +0100

>ask questions and/or discuss, if you want.

By George (or whoever) Man, your right.  Nowhere in the rules is it stated
that a player may not change their *active* proposals, in effect this could
give very 'interesting' results in the hands of a being consummed with the
desire for world (or at least nomic) domination.  Now i look closely there
are any number of possible loopholes in the rules, i hope therefore that,
since someone has not already achieved omnipotence or something equaly
boring and killed the game that the populace of this fine nomic is above
such things as power hunger and greed, (after all we are communist are we
not?)

I see that i have a lot to learn about Macronomic and the nomic universe in
general....

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/

"There seem to be many loop holes in these rules Pinky, I need to plan for
tommorow night."
"What are we doing tomorrow night Brain?"
The same thing we do every night Pinky, TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!...
sorry i mean, TRY TO TAKE OVER THE NOMIC!!!!!"
"Oh yeah Brain, Narf. Point."
"Goodnight Brain"
Goodnight Pinky"

"They're Pinky, They're Pinky and they're Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain,
Brain"...

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\

... :-)

Dan

  /================================================================\
  | Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.  |
  \================================================================/

---

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 22:46:59 +0100

>can still make a proposal.  I'm interested in which of my 3 proposals his

I proposal does not confict with anything, as far as i am aware, i tell you
what, should i show everyone the proposal i proposed, the thing that is
causing all this grief and let you all decide, firstly if it is worth
changing, and secondly how it should be changed, and thirdly by what means
(eg, should i immediately after it is passed propose an ammendment or
something)?

dan