omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy (mostly
while browsing rule history) and I would like to set one up at some
point, it's not critical, because proposals are not referred to as
often as CFJs and their history is not as important as rules'; and I
have never actually had occasion to use yours, since as far as I can
tell, it does not include proposal text (so when searching for the
proposal text in list archives I may as well go to voting results and
get the results there). Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether
yours is updated (except insofar as it checks my errors, but I don't
think it's worth duplicating recordkeeping just for that); if anyone
else depends on the Assessor DB, however, please speak up so I can
prioritize getting something up.
It doesn't, it was only designed to track votes. I won't bother
updating it further, then, but I'll leave the existing data and
scripts up in case anyone decides to grab and use them (as Roujo
has done with CotC).
Because the thing naturally built up history, I added some trend
analysis reports ('Proposal count' and 'Adoption count', and 'Look
up similarities' which I think was inspired by root voting 'endorse
<player who will hopefully return the favor>' rather than PRESENT).
There are some leftover columns for stuff repealed years ago. There's
also a distinction between 'rejected' and 'narrowly rejected' (the
latter indicating that VI was at least half of AI); this originally
tied in with a rule clause, I kept it as an unofficial aspect of one
of the trend reports.
