Monday, September 11, 2006

Proposal: The Score

Self-killed. —Thelonious

Adminned at 13 Sep 2006 01:16:58 UTC

Add a new rule titled “The Score” with the following body.

Any musician who simultaneously meets all the criteria below is said to have mastered the score.  A musician who has mastered the score has achieved victory.

  • e must be playing an instrument (other than “-”).
  • e must have Consant harmony.
  • e must have the same Tempo as the conductor (and that Tempo must not be “-”).
  • e must have the same Dynamic as the conductor (and that Dynamic must not be “-”).
  • After the this rule has been enacted…
    • e must make at least 5 manual changes to the style values in the GNDT, each of which triggers at least 5 automatic changes and each of which e applies correctly on the first attempt.  A change is considered to have been correctly applied if it was made at least 24 hours ago and hasn’t been reverted.  A change is also considered to have been correctly applied if it was reverted but a Call for Judgement ruled that it was correctly applied.
    • e must make at least 8 proposals which are enacted.
    • e must make more proposals that are enacted than proposals that are failed.

Add a subrule titled “Tracking” with the following body.

New musicians have eir Changes, Enacted & Failed set to 0.

  • When a proposal is enacted, the enacting admin must increase the proposer’s Enacted by 1.  e must do this even if the proposer is idle.  This overrides rule 1.2.
  • When a proposal is failed (for any reason), the enacting admin must increase the proposer’s Failed by 1.  e must do this even if the proposer is idle.  This overrides rule 1.2.
  • When a musician makes a manual change to a style value which triggers 5 automatic changes, e must increase eir Changes by 1 provided that e makes the changes correctly on the first attempt.
  • It is believed that the GNDT values introduced by this rule correctly track the conditions required for victory according to the parent rule.  The tracking values will probably be taken as evidence that the conditions have been met.  However, note that the conditions must be met rather than any specific values of the Changes, Enacted & Failed values so, in the case of dispute, a musician will have to prove e has met the conditions from first principles.
Add the following columns to the GNDT and initialise them all to 0 for all musicians.  Changes, Passed & Failed.



09-11-2006 16:34:17 UTC

against While I love the idea, every time someone goes idle but has a proposal, we would have to uncomment em in the GNDT, change a value, then recomment em, which could get annoying after some time.


09-11-2006 17:43:35 UTC

against Too Confuse, there is no “Consant” harmony anywhere and what Rodney said.

Angry Grasshopper:

09-11-2006 18:04:02 UTC

for, we can tie up the loose ends as we go. ;)


09-11-2006 20:18:29 UTC


Elias IX:

09-11-2006 21:24:48 UTC



09-12-2006 00:17:22 UTC


Elias IX:

09-12-2006 00:35:25 UTC

CoV!  against

Elias IX:

09-12-2006 00:36:55 UTC

Sorry, I go back to for


09-12-2006 01:19:48 UTC



09-12-2006 07:16:51 UTC



09-12-2006 09:17:01 UTC

Rodney - Can you think of a better way of ensuring that musicians can’t go idle to prevent failing proposals counting against them?  Actually, maybe I can.  What if we made it so that when a proposal is made you increase your failed count by 1.  When it passes, the enacting admin decreases the failed count by 1 and increases the enacted count by 1?

C.P. - I see no reason why the enacting admin couldn’t correct “Consant” -> “Consonant” under the last sentence of R1.1.


09-12-2006 11:14:32 UTC

The “too confuse” part remains. It clutters the admining of proposals and creates a lot of smoke with the “5 changes” bit. It also gives incentive to Proposal spamming.

I’d vote for a Victory Condition which doesn’t have to do with passing or faling of Proposals.


09-12-2006 11:17:29 UTC

It’s unlikely to lead to proposal spamming because spam proposals are likely to be failed and therefore count against you rather than for you.


09-12-2006 23:46:23 UTC



09-13-2006 08:16:11 UTC

against S-K to repropose taking into account your comments.