Subject: Re: Props 29, 26, 23

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:20:44 -0000

The nature of patchwork.

In Prop 29 I like the creation of a new class of proposals, ones that 
amend very little (point-corrections) for little cost and return on 
the part of the proposer. My problem with it is that it targets the 
proposal itself, while it is in the proposal hopper, rather than a 
rule that is enacted into the ruleset already. This makes proposals 
either subject to flux during their voting period or subject to extra 
rounds of voting in order to pass.

That said, I do not like the example "patch", Prop 26, of Prop 23, as 
it relies overmuch on the timing of the adoption of each proposal; 
simultaneity being something we wanted to leave behind in this nomic. 
I do not find it an adequate fix. 

-Oloros

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:08 +1000

>the part of the proposer.

Not really, it's a "contingency" thing to stop what happened to P23 when P8
was adopted, i.e. having its ground shot out from under it. Patching such
a proposal would enable it to land on the revised airstrip, so to speak

>My problem with it is that it targets the

No, I'm not so sure that it fluxes up proposals. Patching a proposal has
no direct effect on the Adoption of that proposal. _If_ the players decide
that a Patch is necessary, they need to hold up voting and adopting the
original propsal until the Patch is rushed through.

>I do not find it an adequate fix.

Well why did you vote FOR it then? And my inbox also notes that you voted
FOR proposal 23 but I can't find it in the archive. Did you delete that
vote?

The rules are unclear on the when messages could/should be deleted.
Perhaps I should propose a Rule0-proposal such as:

"A message to the AML, VML or RULES is legal if and only if it is
explicitly permitted by the Ruleset. Illegal messages have no game effect
and must be deleted. Legal messages may not be deleted."

()T

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:49:18 -0600

I too have problems with Prop 29. Specifically, one sentence. 

"A Patch may not be Adopted after the Proposal specified in its
Subject Line has been Adopted."

The whole timing thing is bothersome. What would make more sense, is
for a patch to be used as a modification to the orginal proposal and
not a seperate proposal itself. Votes would count for both of them at
once, and they would pass as one unit. As it is now, the proposal could
pass, and the patch doesn't. That doesn't seem to make much sense. 

If Players approve the proposal without the patch, then the problems are
either minor, or the players aren't paying attention. In either case, a
simple proposal made later to modify the rule, would work just fine.

Now, if Players are voting against the prop, and the proposer is
concerned that it will fail, simply remove the proposal from voting,
and submit the new-improved proposal with patch applied. 

That last sentence does bring up a point to be considered. We have all
kinds of rules about submitting a proposal, but we all know how easy
it is to simply remove a proposal. The proposer simply deletes that
message, and *poof* it's gone. The players who voted for it may be
upset it is gone, but if they really liked it, it can be resubmitted
again. That gets back to the 'intellectual property' problem 
mentioned earlier. I think we should dicuss that problem further.

As for patches, we don't need them. We have no limits on the number of
proposals submitted, and there is no reason why a flawed proposal
cannot be removed and re-submitted with fixes. If the proposer doesn't
do it, and others feel that it needs patching, it can be modified after
it becomes a rule or else defeated and re-submitted with the changes.

Xylen
-- 
Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of
contents may have occurred during transmission.

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:07:44 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Xylen wrote:
> 
> As for patches, we don't need them. We have no limits on the 
> number of proposals submitted, and there is no reason why a
> flawed proposal cannot be removed and re-submitted with fixes. 
> If the proposer doesn't do it, and others feel that it needs 
> patching, it can be modified after it becomes a rule or else 
> defeated and re-submitted with the changes.
> 
This, I think is the final argument. However, not having thought of 
it, I worked on the following just after lunch today:

A Patch is a proposed change to a proposed Rule-Change that is Open 
for Voting at the time the Patch is proposed. 

Any Player may post a Patch to the VML with the subject 
line "Proposal [n] Patch [x]" where [n] is the integer of the 
Proposal that is targeted by the Patch, and [x] is an integer one 
greater than the most recently posted Patch to that Proposal. 
Following the post to the VML, a message must be posted to the AML 
with the subject line "Patch [x] to Proposal [n] Open for Voting". 
The body of this message should be identical to that posted to the 
VML.

An example of a proper Vote for a Patch with subject line "Proposal 
[n] Patch [x]" would be "Re: Proposal [n] Patch [x] - VOTE", where 
VOTE is a permissible Vote as described in Rule 5.

When a Patch can be Adopted, any Player (known as the Adopter) may 
adopt the Patch by taking the following steps:

1) Post a Reply to each of the original Patch and the targeted Rule-
change in the VML, adding the phrase "- ADOPTED" to the subject line. 
The body of the message should be empty.

2) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Patch [x] to 
Proposal [n] ADOPTED" where [n] is the number assigned to the 
targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. 
The body of this message must list the Total Points of all Players.

3) Post a message to the VML with the subject line "Proposal [n].[x]" 
where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted Rule-Change, and [x] 
is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of this message must be 
the text of the proposed Rule-Change, as specified by the Patch.

4) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Proposal [n].[x] 
Open for Voting" where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted 
Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of 
this message must be identical to that posted to the VML.

When a Patch can be Defeated, any Player may declare it Defeated by 
taking the following steps:

1) Post a Reply to the original Patch in the VML adding the phrase "- 
DEFEATED" to the subject line. The body of the message should be 
empty.

2) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Patch [n] to 
Proposal [x] Defeated" where [n] is the number assigned to the 
targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. 
The body of this message must be identical to that posted to the VML.

A Patched Rule-Change retains no Votes from its prior version(s). The 
Adoption or Defeat of a Patched Rule-Change awards no Points to the 
Player who originally Proposed it.