Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Proposal: “Previous Days” clarification

Reaches Quorum (15-3)
Enacted by Hix

Adminned at 07 Feb 2007 14:24:31 UTC

In the Rule “Filmographies”, replace “if they have not already done so in the previous four days” with “if e has not already done so that day or on any of the 3 previous three days”

Remove all Film/Role entries on the Filmographies page that were added by Actors at a time when that Actor had already done so that day.

Comments

The Doctor:

02-06-2007 23:26:55 UTC

for See - I FOR Your proposals.

Josh:

02-06-2007 23:27:39 UTC

“any of the 3 previous three days”?

against

A necessary fix, but changing it to 9 days is a bit draconian.

spikebrennan:

02-06-2007 23:28:25 UTC

for  (who were the people who monkeyed with Filmographies)?

Oh, and apropos of nothing, would some admin like to modify the Ruleset to conform to the recently approved Proposals?

Doremi:

02-06-2007 23:29:34 UTC

against Josh is right, the wording makes it weird.

Josh:

02-06-2007 23:29:48 UTC

They have been - if you click on edit, you’ll see - you just need to reload the page. See the FAQ for more details.

Hix:

02-06-2007 23:33:04 UTC

what’s this about 9 days?  something I don’t see about my wording?

Hix:

02-06-2007 23:34:51 UTC

Oh, I see.  That’s an obvious typographical mistake (covered under Rule 1.1).  Specifically, the numeral “3” is a typo.

Kevan:

02-06-2007 23:47:25 UTC

for

Cosmologicon:

02-07-2007 00:21:13 UTC

for

Clucky:

02-07-2007 00:25:14 UTC

for

Doodle:

02-07-2007 00:46:25 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

02-07-2007 01:06:49 UTC

for

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 02:10:40 UTC

for

alethiophile:

02-07-2007 02:11:51 UTC

against until the “3 previous three days” problem is fixed.

Elias IX:

02-07-2007 02:42:19 UTC

for

ChinDoGu:

02-07-2007 02:57:57 UTC

against 3 previous three days is a problem i believe.

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 03:13:31 UTC

Typos can be edited by an admin per Rule 1.1. It isn’t a problem.

Excalabur:

02-07-2007 03:51:57 UTC

It depends.. it’s grammatical as it stands, unfortunately :)

However, it closes a loophole, so for

Tiberias:

02-07-2007 04:47:21 UTC

for

ChinDoGu:

02-07-2007 05:51:55 UTC

Assuming its a typo and not intentional.  I believe there is a precident that if the typo made sence the way it read, then it couldn’t be edited by the admin…  Anyone else remember that?

viewtyjoe:

02-07-2007 08:18:32 UTC

for

Josh:

02-07-2007 09:24:24 UTC

COV:  for The number of FOR votes implies that there would be support for treating it as a typo.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-07-2007 16:47:06 UTC

for Typo