Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
Yally wrote: Actually, this whole ordeal gave me a really good thesis idea about alternate realities in nomic (i.e., following the wrong set of rules for an extended period of time). Has anything been written on this topic yet? See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only half-joking.)
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 9 June 2012 14:35, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only half-joking.) Half? Where's the half-joke? Since B Nomic spent almost its entire history stuck in the first or second era (I forget which), and they only realised it after about five more of them, I'd say it meets Yally's criterion perfectly :)
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective. Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of this?
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective. Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of this? Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 06/09/2012 06:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective. Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of this? Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal. -scshunt That's a terrible idea. Of all the things that desperately need periodic ratification
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal. Good thing we have that safeguard against errant Rulekeepors, or we might be in trouble!
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
Maybe I should just submit yearly ruleset ratification proposals. Also, tomorrow I'll go search for proposals that showed up in voting results but not current_flr.txt,v and make sure that they're all AI fails or other issues. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal. Good thing we have that safeguard against errant Rulekeepors, or we might be in trouble!
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective. Um... I guess so. Ugh.
Re: DIS: Missing Proposal
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective. Um... I guess so. Ugh. Actually, this whole ordeal gave me a really good thesis idea about alternate realities in nomic (i.e., following the wrong set of rules for an extended period of time). Has anything been written on this topic yet?
