Home » Forums » Proposal Discussion

Discuss 322: Make 103 Mutable

Proposed proposal: Make rule 103 mutable.

Quoted for reference:

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

322 Preview ›
 

Forgive my density, but why?

#
  • By ssg at 07/07/2008 - 15:50
 
 

The current ruleset doesn't allow for changes to more than one rule at a time. This is a step toward allowing broader proposals or even changing all immutables to mutable at once.

#
  • By jay at 07/07/2008 - 16:14
 
 

I disagree with your interpretation that a rule can only do one of those things. I think you're misreading that as "any ONE of the following." Grammatically I think it's just defining what makes something a rule.

#
  • By 1 at 07/07/2008 - 17:35
 
 

My interpretation has always been jay's, but I find 1's ideas intriguing.

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/07/2008 - 17:51
 
 

Doesn't the presence of "a" and "or" suggest that a proposal can only do one of these things to one proposal at a time?

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/07/2008 - 17:54
 
 

I don't think so.

For example:

103. A great movie is any of the following: (1) a movie with great special effects; (2) a movie with great acting; or (3) a movie starring Tom Cruise.

makes sense to me. surely this rule would hold that Mission: Impossible 2 is a great movie even though it has all three.

FURTHERMORE, to put it in terms more friendly to Tom Cruise hating nerds, think of the OR operator in boolean search things. It does not denote exclusivity.

#
  • By 1 at 07/07/2008 - 19:45
 
 

With a name like 1 you wouldn't expect a binary comparison to a ternary analogy.

#
  • By jay at 07/07/2008 - 21:56
 
 

What about 322: All current rules are mutable.

#
  • By jay at 07/07/2008 - 21:59
 
 

I would vote against that, as I think it would lead to too much change too soon, but I don't think that it would be an illegal rule.

#
  • By 1 at 07/08/2008 - 01:35
 
 

Also, "all current rules are mutable" violates the other rule that says only 25 mutable rules may exist at any one time.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 07/08/2008 - 05:15
 
 

Then let's strike 209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

#
  • By jay at 07/08/2008 - 09:57
 
 

1, your analogy is flawed. Your example is about properties of movies and so it is already a foregone conclusion, no matter the structure of your example, that a movie may have more than one property. The rule is about actions and we have no reason to believe before reading the rule that we must be allowed to do more than one action, so we must rely on the rule itself to guide us. As gerryblog points out, the "or" indicates exclusivity.

#
  • By ssg at 07/08/2008 - 11:28
 
 

I'm going back to my original proposal. I disagree with 1's interpretation because under it, mutability is pointless, since you could change a rule's mutability and text in the same proposal. I think my original reading of "one of these 3" is accurate.

#
  • By jay at 07/08/2008 - 17:02
 
 

... or fix Currency.

#
  • By jay at 07/08/2008 - 23:49
 
 

Yeah, I am convinced that I was mistaken.

#
  • By 1 at 07/09/2008 - 01:36
 
 

My vote: just repeal Currency wholesale. We don't need this points garbage. We can still collect points as before, but we won't have a victory threshold.

#
  • By ssg at 07/10/2008 - 11:46
 
 

I'd repeal the recent currency rule, it's a complete mess.

#
  • By shelleycat at 07/10/2008 - 13:30
 
 

And yet we voted for it, unanimously. We are a bunch of chumps and suckers to gerryblog's PT Barnum.

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/10/2008 - 15:20
 
 

I blame my house guests. I didn't really read the rule before voting, going against my usual practise, and would have voted no if I'd had more time. Not that it would have helped but I would have pointed out the inconsistencies to everyone else as well.

#
  • By shelleycat at 07/10/2008 - 16:52
 
 

Currency is a good idea that has been marred whose implementation has been marred by a couple of ne'er-do-wells, malcontents, and bomb-throwers. To the extent that it is flawed -- which is hardly at all -- we should of course fix it, but some people have really let the nitpicking get way out of hand in their efforts to prove how clever they are.

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/10/2008 - 20:17
 
 

Currency is a good idea that has been marred whose implementation has been marred by a couple of ne'er-do-wells, malcontents, and bomb-throwers.

I would counter that currency was a cunning plan that has lead the Super Cool Victory Fellowship to an early and unexpected upset victory. Congratulations, gerryblog!

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/11/2008 - 05:06
 
 

I like how not only did we win the game, but we also won lifelong friends. You two are welcome to stay with me to Australia any time. I'm taking you to the koala sanctuary!

#
  • By 1 at 07/11/2008 - 09:14
 
 

And not only did we win lifelong friends, we taught everyone a valuable lesson in the value of teamwork and cooperation.

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/11/2008 - 10:40
 
 

Yeah, in a real sense there were no losers. Just everybody other than the three of us.

#
  • By 1 at 07/12/2008 - 03:56
 
 

Especially jay.

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/12/2008 - 04:25
 
 

Oh come on AAA, that's so true.

#
  • By 1 at 07/12/2008 - 05:42