|
Author
|
Topic: Proposal: Rule numbering / Correct rule numbers
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted October 21, 2002 02:07 PM
This only makes sense if when my amendment of rule # 108 gets passed.
"Title: Rule Numbering
A Player may propose a reordering of rule numbers. This reordering is a mapping from old rule numbers to new rule numbers. If old and new number are the same they are left out. The new rule numbers must be correct."
This allows for arbitrary reordering of the rules which affects precedence of the rules. Note that "correct" rule numbers must be defined in a rule:
"Title: Correct Rule Numbers
A rule number is correct if
(1) it is a positive integer
(2) no to rules have the same rule number"
Maybe "share" instead of "have" is stilistically preferable.
Maybe it would also be better to talk of a "set of correct rule numbers", i.e. "Rule Numbering" would talk of a mapping between sets of rule numbers, "Correct Rule Numbers" would be "Set of Correct Rule Numbers" and (1) would be "every rule number is ..."
IP: Logged
|
|
SkyCrashesDown
Member
Member # 25
|
posted November 01, 2002 08:31 AM
I dig this like crazy, but I would really like to do it just slightly differently. Rather than allowing wholesale reordering of rules, let's make it so that players can only allow one small action, such as moving one rule or swapping a pair of rules, at a time. This is desireable for a number of reasons:
* The proposals are easier to understand (a full-scale reorder with dozens or hundreds of rules would be a nightmare to comprehend).
* It inhibits actions which would catastrophically change the rules -- to really screw things up will take a number of successive proposals.
* Doing it this way makes things a lot more interesting because people can scheme like crazy, mess with each other's re-ordering schemes, et cetera.
* It will be easier to state the rule in a clear and unambiguous way.
Also, let me point out something very important. Rule 101 is worded as follows:
"All rules will be numbered starting from 101 and rising +1 each time."
That means that, very possibly, once rules have been reordered, some future rule may have a number equal to a reordered rule, if any gaps were left in the ordering. This would mean we would have rules without correct numbering. Which could become ambiguous or even contradictory (I hope not!) if the proposed amendment to rule 108 passes.
Also, this rule gives me an idea for a really cool rule which I will start a new proposal for. I think you'll like it.
Oh, two more things. You should make it clear that there are two proposals here, or combine them into one. Second, you've got a typo in (2): it says "to" rather than "two."
--------------------
Rule 101: Everybody love Pupkin.
IP: Logged
|
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted November 02, 2002 02:09 AM
Rule 101 should read: "Every rule has a correct rule number" or alike.
"Move rule #x before rule #y and move rules down if necessary" should be enough for a mapping. There are gaps (allowed) in the rule numbering. This is desirable if you like to group rules with the "same" subject together. They could have the same "beginning" part as their rule number like rule rules ![[Wink]](../images/wink.gif) having 1xx, voting rules 2xx, currency 2xxx or whatever. Of course this has (at the moment) no implication on their meaning, it just increases readability.
"mess with each other's re-ordering schemes" sounds interesting ![[Smile]](../images/smile.gif)
"It inhibits actions which would catastrophically change the rules" - You don´t have to vote in favor of it. But a good point.
"The proposals are easier to understand" - A complete mapping is crazy Just do it like above.
"It will be easier to state the rule in a clear and unambiguous way" - Very similar I guess.
It could also be impossible to reach a specific rule numbering. A somewhat pathological situation, but possible.
Yes, "to" is a typo, it should read "two".
And now for something ...
A proposal shouldn´t automatically result in a rule (if it passes). The last thing that passed (the extra pointes) shouldn´t really be a rule, it should only be done. All passed proposals could be recorded in a history. A reordering of rules shouldn´t really be a rule afterwards.
IP: Logged
|
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted November 02, 2002 02:36 AM
Replace
"A Player may propose a reordering of rule numbers."
with
"A Player may propose a resolution stating a reordering of rule numbers. The resolution must have a title reading "Title: Reordering of rule numbers". "
IP: Logged
|
|
SkyCrashesDown
Member
Member # 25
|
posted November 02, 2002 05:36 AM
Well, I'll vote for it if you word it my way.
--------------------
Rule 101: Everybody love Pupkin.
IP: Logged
|
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:14 AM
I´ll reword it after some others have passed, i.e. at least the resolution stuff.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
