[Bnomic-private] Proposal: Bandwidth

[Wonko]

Quoth Glotmorf,

>> Imagine this: I make five proposals (hard to imagine, isn't it? :) Now,
>> according to rule 212, I can't make any more. According to rule 19, I may
>> submit proposals. That is a conflict.
> 
> No, because Rule 19 is a general case: it supplies permission.  As for the
> actual method of doing so, that's where Rule 212 comes in.  The rules that
> talk about bandwidth, the rules that talk about public fora, the rules that
> talk about Admin recognition of submitted proposals, all together dictate the
> method and window of opportunity for submitting proposals.  Any player can
> submit proposals.  E just has to do it the right way.  No conflict.

I still disagree. CFI pending.

>> This isn't a 'what it would be' refferring to the past. That's the thing
>> people don't like. This is a 'what it would be' refferring to a present
>> condition. It's easy to calculate - ignore the effects of the Token to find
>> out what eir bandwidth 'would be', then add one to find out what it IS.
>> It's
>> the same way Radar Towers work.
> 
> Uh-huh.  And suppose a later rule does something to modify bandwidth, but is
> in conflict with the Token of Proposals rule, so the Token takes
> priority...except that what the player's bandwidth "would be" without the
> Token is what it "would be" with the other rule in effect.  This is a time
> bomb.

Very well, I amend the part of my proposal which reads,

"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."

to read,

"When a player recieves the Token of Proposals, eir bandwidth increases by
1. When a player loses possession of the Token of Proposals, eir bandwidth
decreases by one, unless eir bandwidth would then be less than zero, in
which case it becomes zero. If a player who possesses the Token of proposals
ever has a Bandwidth of zero, the Token of Proposals is automatically
returned to the Bandwidth Gremlin."


>> 
>> Even if they aren't in conflict, this proposal is still a good idea because
>> it defines "bandwidth". I could make a case for why M-Tek doesn't work at
>> all, based on the way it refers to some strange object called 'Bandwidth'
>> which, under the current ruleset, does not exist.
>> 
>> But they are clearly in conflict - once I've submitted 5 proposals, one
>> says
>> I may submit more, the other says I can't. If that's not conflict I don't
>> know what is.
>> 
>> Incidentally, if they aren't in conflict, then we have a SOE - r212 says
>> that it doesn't apply during nweek 23, but the sentence that says that,
>> according to itself, doesn't apply right now. It's the classic "This
>> statement is False" paradox, and the only way we can know whether or not
>> there's a bandwidth limit is if another rule supercedes poor broken r212
>> and
>> sets the limit.
>> 
>> Fortunately, r19 does this for us.
> 
> Also fortunately, we're almost at the end of nweek 23, so the end-of-r212
> problem will go away.  Did anyone actually exceed their erstwhile bandwidth
> this nweek?

Last nweek was nweek 22. Nweek 23 just began, with the stoppage of the clock
for vote counting.

-- 
Wonko