[Bnomic-private] Proposal: Bandwidth

[Glotmorf]

On 9/13/02 at 11:40 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__Fixing the Bandwidth__
>
>[[
>I was looking through the ruleset, searching for an open hole,
>When I stumbled 'cross a rule that was intriguing to behold...
>This rule was numbered two-one-two, it tried to regulate
>The number of proposals which each player could create.
>
>But alas, for our dear admin, this rule's purpose was defeated,
>By another of the rules, which had poor two-twelve superceded!
>This rule, which we call rule nineteen, doomed two-twelve to disposal,
>By stating that all Players have the right to make proposals!
>
>So rule two-twelve was contradicted, and was overruled,
>By rule ninteen! (which was enforced by rule three-three slash two!)
>And so while we have tried proposals many to prohibit,
>It turns out the sad truth is that there is no Bandwidth Limit!
>
>This hole I had discover'd, I found to be quite scary -
>To think that our poor admin in proposals might be buried!
>And so I now have written a proposal most preventive,
>I hope when voting comes around you all will be assentive!

Tsk.  There is no hole.  Rule 19 may well say all players can make=
 proposals, but it doesn't say they can make an infinite number.  Rule 212=
 doesn't conflict with this; it only modulates it.  What would conflict=
 with this is a rule that says under certain circumstances a player can't=
 make proposals.  No such thing exists.

>
>This is how it goes:
>]]
>Amend rule 212 to be:
>{{
>__Bandwidth__
>
>Each player has an attribute called Bandwidth. No player's Bandwidth may
>never exceed 10.

So...every player's bandwidth must exceed 10 at some time or other?

>At the beginning of each nweek, each player's bandwidth becomes 5.
>When a player makes a proposasl, eir bandwidth decreases by one.
>When a player makes a 1/2 proposasl, eir bandwidth decreases by 1/2
>instead.

Then something should be done about Rule 704, Judgment Props.  Judgment=
 props are defined in that rule as being proposals.  The rule says they=
 don't count against bandwidth, but this new version of Rule 212 would take=
 priority over that.

Also, why specifically have whole and half proposals?  Club props can take=
 any fraction out of the club's members' bandwidth.

>If a player attempts to make a proposal, but the making of such a proposal
>would decrease eir bandwdith to less than zero, the proposal is not made.

So...proposals that create rules that have the possibility of reducing some=
 player's bandwidth to less than zero automatically don't get made?

>
>This rule supercedes rule 19.
>}}
>Amend rule 256, Section B.3, by replacing the text
>
>"The player who holds the Token of Proposals may make one more proposal
>than
>is allowed under the current ruleset. Immediately after eir extra proposal
>is recognized by the Administrator, the Token of Proposals is=
 automatically
>returned to the Bandwidth Gremlin."
>
>with
>
>"The bandwidth of a player holding the Token of Proposals is treated as if
>it were one greater than it would be if e did not have the Token of
>Proposals. At the end of each nweek, the Token of Proposals is transferred
>to the Bandwidth Gremlin's possession."

I'm uncomfortable with "what it would be" rules.  Judging by the votes on=
 my rollback proposal, so is everyone else.

>
>Amend section B.10 of the same rule by replacing the text
>
>"When a player is Burnt, e may make one fewer proposal then e would
>normally
>be able to."
>
>with
>
>"The bandwidth of a Burnt player is treated as if it were one less than it
>would be if e were not Burnt."
>
>}}

I honestly don't think Rules 19 and 212 conflict.  I'd be perfectly happy=
 to submit a judgment prop to that effect...

						Glotmorf