Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Proposal: Hey, That’s *my* Cookbook

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Apr 2015 16:03:34 UTC

Create a Sub-rule to rule Recipes, called “Plagiarism”:

A Recipe may not be composed of exactly the same Steps (in the same order) and Packages as another. Two different Recipes may not have the same name. Thus, the set of contents of a Recipe univocally correspond to the name of the Recipe.
As a clarification: a Recipe may be posted as a comment to the most recent Review (following the limitations set by rule “Review”) even though it has already been posted on a Review.

In the Rule “Ratings” replace the numerated list starting with “1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.” with:

1. Entry Recipes are Rated sequentially in the order they were posted as comments to the Review.
2.The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that is exactly equal to the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
4. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
5. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains 4 or more Stars, set the Rating to * * * * *.
6. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains at least one Plus, one Plus is changed to a Star.
7. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.
8. If that Reviewer has already Rated that Recipe, the Rating to this instance of it becomes - - - - -.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

14-04-2015 17:50:21 UTC

Having the first step of rating each Recipe being “Entry Recipes are Rated sequentially…” sounds a bit like an infinite loop.

And doesn’t the “as a clarification” of the first step contradict the rest of its rule?

Ely:

14-04-2015 18:57:34 UTC

1. Uhm, you might be right. Still, I think it might be acceptable to consider it a command the aim of which is determining what Recipe shall be Rated next. It doesn’t say: “Now Rate Recipes Sequentially”, rather: “This is how you choose which Recipe to rate next”.
2. I don’t think so, because “a Recipe consists of a name, a list of three to six Packages, and a list of between one and six Steps in sequence.”
Recipes may be posted as comments, but this doesn’t mean that those comments are the Recipes. (and what that rule would like to do is to forbid Cooks submitting two technically identical Recipes, but allow them to submit the same Recipe twice.
Does that make sense?

mideg:

14-04-2015 20:18:28 UTC

for

I think. I’d like to interprete 1 as not being an infinity loop, but if the majority sees this differently, we should fix this before using it.

Brendan: he/him

14-04-2015 21:17:19 UTC

against More plagiarism.

Kevan: he/him

14-04-2015 21:43:06 UTC

1. I think the list being introduced as “These rules are applied in the following order and are as follows” is enough for this to be more loop than not.

2. Got it, that makes sense.

against for the first bit.

Josh: he/they

15-04-2015 06:58:36 UTC

against

severian:

15-04-2015 12:55:55 UTC

imperial

Ely:

15-04-2015 15:48:44 UTC

against s/k because ambiguity is bad, and should this pass we’d have to have a CfJ as soon as a Review is posted.