Friday, June 26, 2009

Proposal: Third Time’s a Charm

Enacted, 6-5—yuri_dragon_17
Speeds things up

Adminned at 28 Jun 2009 17:50:45 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:

06-26-2009 03:42:10 UTC

for

Clucky:

06-26-2009 04:26:40 UTC

for

Darknight:

06-26-2009 06:08:20 UTC

for

Bobbikk:

06-26-2009 07:51:48 UTC

for

Shem:

06-26-2009 09:17:16 UTC

Tourism “can be any whole number”.
So it can be negative?

Qwazukee:

06-26-2009 13:09:47 UTC

for

ais523:

06-26-2009 15:18:26 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

06-26-2009 15:55:44 UTC

Shem: No. By definition, whole numbers are any positive integer, and 0.

Psychotipath:

06-26-2009 16:02:40 UTC

for Huh, no a whole number is any integer it can be negative.

Wooble:

06-26-2009 16:56:23 UTC

against

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:

06-26-2009 16:57:44 UTC

Yeah, surely a “whole number” is just an integer?

ais523:

06-26-2009 18:00:15 UTC

“natural number” is positive only, plus (heavily disputed) 0; “whole number” is, I thought, pretty uncontroversially integer allowing negatives.

Ienpw III:

06-26-2009 18:43:55 UTC

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:

06-26-2009 21:11:03 UTC

A whole number is an integer and if you guys try to argue otherwise I will be very upset.

Qwazukee:

06-26-2009 23:29:47 UTC

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:

06-27-2009 02:40:44 UTC

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:

06-27-2009 03:37:18 UTC

One non-gamestate webset is not correct.

But I’m sick about people debating over definitions so I’m changing my vote to imperial

Ienpw III:

06-27-2009 06:33:28 UTC

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:

06-27-2009 07:23:31 UTC

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.

Klisz:

06-27-2009 16:33:08 UTC

A whole number is any number that does not need a decimal point.  for

arthexis:

06-28-2009 01:16:13 UTC

against Bland

Shem:

06-28-2009 01:25:28 UTC

against until we change the wording to something explicit which we can all agree on.

ais523:

06-28-2009 11:48:02 UTC

CoV against per Shem

ais523:

06-28-2009 15:38:19 UTC

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:

06-28-2009 15:44:56 UTC

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:

06-28-2009 17:16:33 UTC

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:

06-28-2009 20:41:48 UTC

CoV against

Ienpw III:

06-28-2009 21:15:00 UTC

Fine. It is possible to have negative tourism. Just don’t propose anything that allows you to, and we’re good.