Monday, May 10, 2010

Proposal: Elementary, my dear emperor!

Passes 12-4. X=1. Ien.

Adminned at 12 May 2010 12:33:05 UTC

Part 1: Add a dynastic rule entitled “Therefore, Socrates is mortal”, as follows:

An Argument is a type of Proposal that does not introduce one or more Hooks, but instead proposes to establish a meaning for one or more Hooks through deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning or both.  In order for a Proposal to be an Argument, it must be identified as such in the title of the blog post that comprises it.  An Argument does not count as a Proposal for purposes of the phrase “unless the Blognomicer already has 2 Proposals pending” in Rule 1.3, but no Blognomicer may have more than X Arguments pending at any time.  For example, if the Ruleset provides that “All dogs go to heaven”, and also provides that “Happiness is a warm puppy”, then an Argument, if it were made and enacted, could establish that “Happiness goes to heaven” (because happiness is a puppy as established by the Ruleset, a puppy is a kind of dog according to the ordinary meanings of “dog” and “puppy”, and any dog goes to heaven as established by the Ruleset).  There is established a section of the Dynastic Rules entitled “The Talmud” consisting of all conclusions that are established by means of Argument.

Part 2:
In Part 1, replace “X” in Part 1 with the number that appears in more EVCs to this Proposal than any other number.  If no single number appears in more such EVCs, then let “X” equal one.  If X equals one, then replace the phrase “X Arguments” in Part 1 with “one Argument”.

Comments

Put:

10-05-2010 15:18:33 UTC

for 3

flurie:

10-05-2010 15:36:31 UTC

for 2

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 16:14:28 UTC

for 1

Klisz:

10-05-2010 16:38:57 UTC

imperial 69105

Tiberias:

10-05-2010 17:24:49 UTC

against 0

“Blognomicer” doesn’t mean anything anymore.

spikebrennan:

10-05-2010 17:30:49 UTC

It’s a typo and can be corrected by the enacting admin

Tiberias:

10-05-2010 17:39:29 UTC

@spike: Under normal circumstances I’d agree with you, but considering that very recently “Blognomicer” did mean something (and in fact still did when this proposal was submitted), I don’t think that it’s can reasonably be considered a typographical error.

If the change had been from “Blognomicer” to “Player”, would that still be glossed over as a typographical error?

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 17:41:02 UTC

I think at that point it was obvious that Kevan’s proposal was going to pass, and so spike would have intended to write “Blognomicker”.

Rodney:

10-05-2010 17:43:10 UTC

for 3.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 17:50:16 UTC

@Tiberias: Yes, it would.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 18:00:58 UTC

Blognomic glosses everything over. Core rules loopholes? What are they?

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 18:09:28 UTC

against Because I currently seem to be voting on allowing [number I can’t mention] Argument proposals a day from every player, which seems a bit much, and I could be voting on allowing [very large number I can’t mention] per day if a couple more people think that would be funny, or get careless when discussing such numbers.

1.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 18:34:38 UTC

CoV against per Kevan. Two.

spikebrennan:

10-05-2010 18:50:50 UTC

for
Explicit author vote.
One. 
I believe that this makes “one” the current frontrunner for the number of Argument proposals. 
(Kevan, it’s not X argument proposals _a day_, it’s the current number of non-Argument Proposals per player pending at a time plus X Argument proposals per player pending at a time.)

SeerPenguin:

10-05-2010 20:48:42 UTC

for 1

Kevan: he/him

10-05-2010 20:54:36 UTC

[spike] Oh, fair point, I misread it. There’s still the usual limit on proposals-per-day, then.

for CoV. 1.

Klisz:

10-05-2010 20:55:23 UTC

I remain against because of the EVC numbers.

Jumblin McGrumblin:

10-05-2010 21:48:19 UTC

for 3

Galdyn:

11-05-2010 00:49:54 UTC

for 1

Darknight: he/him

11-05-2010 03:01:11 UTC

for 1

scshunt:

11-05-2010 03:52:13 UTC

against

0

muiro:

11-05-2010 13:19:31 UTC

for

Rodney:

11-05-2010 15:15:47 UTC

for CoV. 1. Misread the proposal.

keecz:

11-05-2010 18:55:29 UTC

for 1

ais523:

12-05-2010 13:53:29 UTC

against 1 So this creates a new class of proposal which, by definition, cannot do anything? If something’s a logical consequence of the rules, it’s binding whether or not we introduce another rule to state it explicitly. Note also that this mechanism cannot define meanings for Hooks; they wouldn’t have logical-consequence definitions unless they had some sort of meaning already. In other words, this is basically a complex way to do nothing useful.

Klisz:

12-05-2010 16:01:52 UTC

I processed the rest of te proposals, but not this one, as this one has too complicated of an EVC conditional.

spikebrennan:

12-05-2010 17:14:23 UTC

It’s not complicated.  X = 1 (more EVCs contain “1” than any other number), so use the phrase “One Argument” in place of “x arguments”.

Klisz:

12-05-2010 17:40:01 UTC

It’s complicated in practice when trying to count. (Don’t tell an admin what is and is not difficult to enact when you’ve never enacted anything, spikebrennan.)

redtara: they/them

12-05-2010 19:31:50 UTC

It’s not, actually.