Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Proposal: You know some cool plants, don‘t you?

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 20 May 2011 07:40:53 UTC

If there exists a Rule entitled “Planting” add a subrule to that rule, name it “Plants Research” and add the following text to this subrule:

A Proposal is known as a Seed Proposal, if both its title contain the phrase “[Seed]”, and it‘s only purpose is to add, remove or amend one or more Seeds. Farmers should not submit proposals which try to amend or remove Seeds, if some Farmer has already used them.

All Farmers who have less than two Proposals pending and have not already made three Proposals that day, may submit a Proposal. A Farmer may submit a Proposal, even if they have two Proposals pending, if and only if this causes the Farmer to have at least one pending Seed Proposal. This Rule takes precedence of the Rule entitled “Proposals”.

I‘d like to see a similar solution for zombies, if someone manages to create them…

Comments

Yoda:

05-18-2011 20:51:50 UTC

against There is nothing stating that a change to the attributes to a Seed is retroactive with any Crops that were planted from that Seed.  Also, the second paragraph seems suspicious even though I know what it’s trying to do.

Keba:

05-18-2011 21:00:32 UTC

“There is nothing stating that a change to the attributes to a Seed is retroactive with any Crops that were planted from that Seed.”

Hm, it should not? After you used a certain Seed to plant your Crop, changing the others seeds does not affect your Crop. Yes, we would need to track that, that‘s the reason why Farmers should not amend/remove such seeds.

I agree that the second paragraph isn‘t worded that nice, didn‘t know how to make it clearer.

Yoda:

05-18-2011 21:09:27 UTC

Honestly, I would just rather the second paragraph not be in there at all.

Winner:

05-18-2011 21:17:56 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-18-2011 21:21:05 UTC

imperial

Yoda:

05-18-2011 21:45:53 UTC

Even though my proposal fixes retroactivity, I’m still not sure about the wording of the 2nd paragraph.

Ely:

05-18-2011 21:51:32 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

05-18-2011 22:34:01 UTC

for

Hix:

05-18-2011 23:22:09 UTC

against
1:  “Purpose”?
2:  “Used”?
3:  If I have no pending Proposals, my next one MUST be a seed proposal.
4:  If I have a seed proposal pending, I have no proposal limit.

aguydude:

05-18-2011 23:38:01 UTC

imperial

aguydude:

05-18-2011 23:43:32 UTC

against
Just saw Hix’s post.  After a few readings of the rule, I can definitely see Hix’s 3rd point.  I can also see a way to come up with his 4th point, though that’s a stretch.

Hix:

05-18-2011 23:53:37 UTC

‘A Farmer may submit a Proposal if and only if this causes the Farmer to have at least one pending Seed Proposal. This Rule takes precedence of the Rule entitled “Proposals”.’

Seems clear to me.

Yoda:

05-19-2011 00:03:57 UTC

Thank you, Hix.  I knew there was something amiss in there.  I just couldn’t pinpoint where.

Darknight:

05-19-2011 00:12:51 UTC

against

aguydude:

05-19-2011 00:50:56 UTC

Hix: Right before that sentence is the sentence, “All Farmers who have less than two Proposals pending and have not already made three Proposals that day, may submit a Proposal. ” That is not part of the rule, “Proposals”

To avoid contradiction, one could thus interpret “even if they have two Proposals pending,” as, “even though they have two Proposals pending.” I.e., that sentence might not apply if a farmer does not have two proposals pending.

Galtori:

05-19-2011 03:44:51 UTC

imperial

Yoda:

05-19-2011 04:20:48 UTC

aguydude: The sentence “A Farmer may submit a Proposal, even if they have two Proposals pending, if and only if this causes the Farmer to have at least one pending Seed Proposal.” can stand alone and thus can be activated at any time.

History lesson: In the 4th dynasty of Josh, this rule was added to the ruleset: “The Anarchist with the highest RIOT score on June 1st 2010 has achieved victory. If multiple Anarchists are tied for the highest RIOT score then they have all achieved victory.”  Purplebeard declared victory stating that the second sentence could be triggered at any time because there was nothing tying it to the June 1st condition.

aguydude:

05-19-2011 05:01:34 UTC

Yoda: My point was based on an internal contradiction within the rule proposal under Hix’s interpretation, not based on any link between the two sentences.  I actually did read over a big chunk of the victory decisions when I joined, including that one.

However, the contradiction I thought I saw was not an actual contradiction, as “X => Y may submit a proposal” and “X => Y may only submit seed proposals” do not contradict one another.

SingularByte:

05-19-2011 06:13:33 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

05-19-2011 07:17:22 UTC

against

Ely:

05-19-2011 07:38:39 UTC

against CoV

Josh:

05-19-2011 07:45:47 UTC

against

Kevan:

05-19-2011 08:16:15 UTC

against Per Hix.

Keba:

05-19-2011 11:56:59 UTC

against S/K Yeah, I failed at wording.

Travis:

05-19-2011 22:08:08 UTC

against