Talk:Nomic:Game 2005-04-02:Proposal 315
From Carls wiki
Johan: According to the previous judgements and proposals the score is allways correct (i.e. updated) so this rule doesn't add anything, the scoretable is just a view on the scores and has really little to do with what the score really is. If you mean the scoretable should allways be updated to show the correct score though I can see the point. Over and out. (16:34, 13 Dec 2005 (CET))
- While we're at it, throw in a link to the scores table. Rule proposals with links in them are sexy. — Carl 16:52, 13 Dec 2005 (CET)
- I think the line "A new rule cannot be accepted unless the score from every previously accepted rules has been updated in the scores table" can only mean exactly that and nothingless. Thus meaning that the rule does indead add something to the game. Thus the score (in the scoretable) is what the scores (really) is.--Jonathan 18:59, 13 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Oops, sorry missed it. (10:06, 14 Dec 2005 (CET))
Johan: Just a general question, is updating the score part of the game? If it is I see a possible deadlock here (and a quick victory for you). Though you have clarified it in the 2nd sentence, maybe drop the first sentence and only keep the second without "That is". (10:06, 14 Dec 2005 (CET))
- Please explain why it would be a deadlock. — Carl 13:01, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: According to the first sentance ("The game can not continue unless the score has been updated."). If the game can not continue unless the score has been updated and updating the score is part of the game, then the game cannot continue with updating the score because it (the score) has not been updated (yet). (13:17, 14 Dec 2005 (CET))
- Ah. But the exact meaning of what it means for the game to continue is clarified after the "That is," right? So isn't it clear that the rule only forbids about the accepting of rules unless the scores table is up-to-date? — Carl 13:48, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Yes, probably. I can argue it both ways. But I think that the rules becomes more clear and precise if that first sentence is stricken (as I see it now, the first sentence doesn't add any meaning that the second dosn't have) i.e. the second sentence is enough to get the message through unambiguously (or, at least, less ambiguously than as it is now).
- I agree. The first sentence doesn't add anything, and so it's semantically null. However, I don't mind it being there, and I will vote yes regardless of whether it's removed or not. — Carl 14:04, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
I think maybe the proposal is not far-reaching enough. Maybe we should define the following things as actions (for the purposes of this rule):
- Proposing a rule
- Making a vote (of any kind)
- Accepting (or rejecting) a rule
- Issuing a Call for Action
Otherwise, the rule runs the risk of having no teeth; we might not see an update to the the scores table until a rule is accepted, which may take a while. — Carl 13:48, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan:How do you mean? Is this a problem? An easier fix would be (I think) to do a s/accepted/proposed/. (15:02, 14 Dec 2005 (CET))
Johan:As the proposal reads now, the score table doesn't have to be updated after rejecting a rule (it never has to actually). (15:02, 14 Dec 2005 (CET))
- Why never? Dang, I'm feeling slow today. Please explain. — Carl 15:05, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan:It says "...every previously accepted rules..." ergo we don't need to update the score from rejected proposals to be able to make new proposals and reject or accept them (it really should be proposals, not rules - but that's another matter).
- So you're saying that the proposal
- uses the wrong term (rules instead of proposal),
- doesn't take rejected proposals into account, and
- is ungrammatical (every ... rules)?
- How in the world could I have missed that during the first reading? I must be ill... — Carl 15:13, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- So you're saying that the proposal
Johan: I like the proposal though, it just needs a couple of fixes, then I will vote yes. (15:26, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)).
Jonas: How about "A proposal can not be voted on, unless the score table exactly shows the actual score." or something? — Jonas 17:11, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Sounds a bit overambitious to me. Why both exactly and actual? Might as well write A proposal can not be voted on, unless the score table exactly, punctuously shows the actual score. Really. — Carl 18:28, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Jonas: Because I don't want it to show the score in some approximative way, just to get to the next proposal. I could be important if we accept new rules which alters the score outside the normal game turn. "Actual" is used to distinguish between the score shown on the page and the real score which it is a representation of. This might be important to keep the score page from showing the imaginary, though correct, score. — Jonas 03:07, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: I think that you can strike exactly, but keep actual, (I really do think that "show the score" really is the same as "show the exact score"). (07:25, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
Okey I have changed the proposal to a new variant. What do you think about it now? --Jonathan 20:03, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Me neither. (07:25, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
- The difference is what the difference is. — Carl 11:35, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Ahhh, but I really think that
- the first sentence should be stricken,
- it should be more on the lines of Jonas suggestion (with voted on instead of accepted), and
- it shouldn't reference proposals as that implies that the scores table doesn't have to be updated unless the score was granted from a proposal (which I read as after each vote on a proposal, but I do think that it's ambiguous). For example we don't need to update the scores table after a judgement.
- — Yours truly (13:00, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
- Johan: Ahhh, but I really think that
Jonas: How about this: "A proposal can not be voted on, unless the score table displays the current score." — Jonas 15:47, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Netzach: Nice! With that wording I would vote yes on it for sure.
- Johan: I like this one. Jonathan, if you won't change your proposal to something like this, I will vote no and so will Jonas, I think. (16:16, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
- You're such bullies, threatening to vote no if you don't get what you want... By the way, I think so too. — Carl 17:38, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: I'm not threatening (at least that wasn't my intention). I'm merly stating a fact - a fact I think Jonathan gains from knowing, because he can then change the rule and acquire more points. SI only try to be as honest and informative as I can - this way the vote becomes more of a formality (because when the vote is cast you already (supposedly) know what everyone is going to vote). (17:57, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
I think that a new rule should be allowed to be proposed without the score beeing updated. I think the score should be updated before a new rule becomes accepted and that is what this rule proposal is going to state. I feel that judgements stands beside the rest of the game and I don't think the fact that they don't trigger an enforced rule proposal is a problem. I am also well avare about the fact that you guys NEVER will make any of my rule proposals accepted and I am thinking about always voting no until one of my proposals get accepted just for the sake of it.--Jonathan 18:08, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Another way to say this is that all updates of the score really should be updates of the score table. — Carl 18:16, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Secondly, I seriously don't think that any of the players in this game has any policy against accepting your proposals, Jonathan. Your belief that this is so only makes it worse for yourself. Don't spoil it now when you have a proposal whose core idea everyone likes. — Carl 18:16, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: I'm going to answer you point by point:
- I think that a new rule should be allowed to be proposed without the score beeing updated.
- That's why Jonas wrote "voted on" not "proposed" - I don't find Jonas formulation strictly necessary this could be yours' to.
- I think the score should be updated before a new rule becomes accepted and that is what this rule proposal is going to state.
- Ok (don't forget rejected ones, this is really the case for choosing voted, it is more general but conveys the same meaning and it won't hinder the game from continuing (we can comment on rules, make proposals, issue judgements and call for actions)).
- I feel that judgements stands beside the rest of the game and I don't think the fact that they don't trigger an enforced rule proposal is a problem.
- Yes but if a judgement (or something else nobody has thought of yet), changes the score, shouldn't the scores table be updated before a new rule becomes accepted (or rejected)? As it reads now, it doesn't have to. I.e. if this rule gets through and a judgement is made that I should lose three points, we never have to update that on the scores table, then the score for me always would be 3 points to much (because we can accept rules without updating the points lost from the judgement). Jonas version makes sure that the points are correct before each "vote on a proposal" not before each vote on a judgement, the score doesn't have to be correct for a judgement to be voted on, commented or made. The only thing Jonas proposal hinders is voting on Rule Proposals (maybe that could be clearer).
- I am also well avare about the fact that you guys NEVER will make any of my rule proposals accepted and I am thinking about always voting no until one of my proposals get accepted just for the sake of it.
- I will vote yes if you address these issues, not otherwise. I won't start voting yes to your proposals just to make you happy.
- Over and out — Johan 18:25, 15 Dec 2005 (CET)
Johan: I see you have changed it a bit, good. I still don't see the reason for the first sentence though. (18:31, 15 Dec 2005 (CET))
- The reason for the first sentence is purely religius it is my believe that it should be there. But you would have me kill my darling, wouldn't you?--Jonathan 22:13, 16 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Well... if it's all right? — Carl 00:17, 17 Dec 2005 (CET)
Jonathan has removed the first sentence now. It looks very nice. — Carl 12:36, 17 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Perfect. I love it. No room for sneaky maneuvers (what I can see). — Johan 23:46, 18 Dec 2005 (CET)
Let's vote. — Carl 19:23, 20 Dec 2005 (CET)
Jonas: Hold your horses! "A new rule cannot be accepted unless the score has been updated in the scores table." is an improvement, but it still has a few bugs. First, the scores table has been updated at several occasions which clearly disables the proposal. If it didn't, the proposals still would have to wait until the score was updated, which means the actual score and will never happen if the proposal is waiting since no points can be awarded. Second, r104 is in violation if you keep the acceptance of the rule in the proposal. Third, it is not a rule until it is accepted. I still think my "A proposal can not be voted on, unless the score table displays the current score." is better, no offense. — Jonas 17:05, 21 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Believe it or not, I actually agree. Those are good points you bring up. Better safe than sorry, I say. — Carl 17:46, 21 Dec 2005 (CET)
- I don't have the energy to understand. Explain it as you would to a child please...--Jonathan 23:50, 21 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Ok. You'll get it:
- The scores table has been updated already, right? 14 times I think. One occasion it was updated was on 2005-09-20 when I lost 5 points. So we can accept rules because the score table has been updated (it's not up to date though - but that's something else).
- r104 states "All rule-changes [...] will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.". This is an immutable rule, it has precedence over all mutable rules. Your rule is in direct conflict with this one (because of the if and only if part).
- You said rule again and not proposal (it's not a rule until it has been accepted).
- /The one and only
- Johan 10:01, 22 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Johan: Ok. You'll get it:
fixed (?)--Jonathan 13:31, 22 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Yes. Let's vote, I say. — Carl 13:35, 22 Dec 2005 (CET)
