Proposal: Third Time’s a Charm
Enacted, 6-5—yuri_dragon_17
Speeds things up
Adminned at 29 Jun 2009 00:50:45 UTC
Create a new rule, Enjoyment:
Every Tourist has the following statistics, tracked in the GNDT:
• Stress. This can be any integer between 0 and 20, inclusively.
• Tan. This can be any integer between 0 and 20, inclusively.
• Tourism. This represents how much of the Caribbean they feel they have experienced. It can be any whole number.
Set the Tan, Stress, and Tourism of all Tourists to 0.

Comments
Amnistar:
Clucky:
Darknight:
Bobbikk:
Shem:
Tourism “can be any whole number”.
So it can be negative?
Qwazukee:
ais523:
Ienpw III:
Shem: No. By definition, whole numbers are any positive integer, and 0.
Psychotipath:
Wooble:
By what definition? There’s no consensus among mathematicians or players of the game on what “whole number” means, so adding it to the ruleset would be a bad idea.
Shem:
Yeah, surely a “whole number” is just an integer?
ais523:
“natural number” is positive only, plus (heavily disputed) 0; “whole number” is, I thought, pretty uncontroversially integer allowing negatives.
Ienpw III:
http://www.answers.com/topic/integer-1
Gives three definitions. Uh oh.
On second thought, does it really matter? Just don’t propose any rules that could make it negative, until we get a fix.
Clucky:
A whole number is an integer and if you guys try to argue otherwise I will be very upset.
Qwazukee:
I agree with Clucky, the fact that someone defines “whole number” any other way is very disturbing. This might be where the “could be illegal” comes back to bite us in the butt, though.
Ienpw III:
http://www.answers.com/topic/integer-1
The first (and therefore most correct) definition is “A member of the set of positive integers and zero.”
Clucky:
One non-gamestate webset is not correct.
But I’m sick about people debating over definitions so I’m changing my vote to
Ienpw III:
http://www.mathleague.com/help/wholenumbers/wholenumbers.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_number (again, note that the first definition is the same)
http://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/whole-number.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whole+number (First definition is again, the same thing)
There are more, but none of you will actually read any of them, and I don’t want to be *too* annoying, so I’ll stop now.
Qwazukee:
I read them, it just seems crazy to me. Perhaps you could just leace out the last line of Tourism; honestly, having negative numbers isn’t a bad thing, and it would avoid us feeling bizarre about such a simple concept.
Darth Cliche:
A whole number is any number that does not need a decimal point.
arthexis:
Shem:
ais523:
CoV
per Shem
ais523:
Note that I think that all attempts to vote FOR this proposal failed due to the new rule in the glossary. According to Wikipedia’s definitions, ‘whole number’ could mean ‘positive integer’, which would exclude 0, and the proposal would then set Tourism values to 0. Therefore, voting FOR this proposal could cause it to pass; and that could cause Tourism to be set to an illegal value, therefore all the votes FOR fail. In fact, it’s possible that the proposal itself was illegal.
Ienpw III:
The proposal was not illegal when created.
Most dictionary websites seem to give “A positive integer or 0” as the first definition, so I think that is what we should use, especially seeing as that is what is meant by “whole number” in this proposal.
ais523:
I just checked the first page of Google results.
#1: Wikipedia: gives all 3 definitions, stating that they’re used by ‘various authors’.
#2: BBC revision website: doesn’t give a definition, but includes ‘negative numbers’ as one of the topics as a subtopic of ‘whole numbers’.
#3: wiseGEEK: defines to include negatives and positives (and 0).
#4: mathleague: “counting numbers and 0”, i.e. nonnegative integers.
#5: WikiAnswers: “A number that doesn’t contain a fraction. A whole number is an integer which can be positive or negative.”
#6: thefreedictionary: Gives all 3 definitions.
#7: Wolfram MathWorld: States positive integer, states that 0 is sometimes included and negatives are sometimes included.
#8: Quia: a game, appears to give no definition at all.
#9: Shodor Interactivate: another game, no obvious definition.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that I think the change to the glossary quite possibly makes this proposal illegal, or votes on it, or an attempt to enact it; not because there’s anything wrong with the proposal, which is reasonable, but because the ‘clarification’ was accidentally far too broad in what it excluded, making all sorts of game actions randomly fail for no reason. (It even affects CFJs, which can be invalid if they would set gamestate to invalid values; this is a very bad thing.)
Qwazukee:
CoV
Ienpw III:
Fine. It is possible to have negative tourism. Just don’t propose anything that allows you to, and we’re good.