Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Proposal: Proposal: Who, what, where?

Vetoed to speed it along. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 27 Oct 2010 08:48:31 UTC

According to “The Director of Operations may be Telephoned by emailing .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). The Director of Operations may also be referred to as “D-Ops” in rule 2.1

Replace in Rule 2.3 “Any Agent who does not have a Codename may Telephone the Director of Operations to request an identity.” with

Any Agent who does not have a Codename may make a telephone call to the D-Ops through the use of the Red Phone to request an identity.

Because it wasn’t clear if it was kevan @ kevan.org or the Red Phone email adress.

Comments

Ujalu, the unnecessary.:

10-26-2010 15:27:10 UTC

Wow, This appears:
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING in /home/blognomic/www/ee/system/core/core.functions.php(634) : eval()‘d code on line 97

Uhm, does this mean I win?


Anyhoozit, I tried to post this:

According to “The Director of Operations may be Telephoned by emailing .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). The Director of Operations may also be referred to as “D-Ops” in rule 2.1

Replace in Rule 2.3 “Any Agent who does not have a Codename may Telephone the Director of Operations to request an identity.” with

Any Agent who does not have a Codename may make a telephone call to the D-Ops through the use of the Red Phone to request an identity.


In the Flavour Text: Because it wasn’t clear if it was .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or the Red Phone email adress

Ujalu, the unnecessary.:

10-26-2010 15:51:23 UTC

for

Kevan:

10-26-2010 15:53:38 UTC

Odd, it looks like it was caused - and can be replicated - by having an email address in the flavour text field. I’ve edited spaces into it to stop it happening.

The proposal had also been timestamped 07:14:48 UTC, which may have been Bucky trying something out to fix the problem? I’ve bumped it back to what I assume the correct timestamp should have been.

Kevan:

10-26-2010 16:01:30 UTC

against, anyway. The ruleset says “The Director of Operations may be Telephoned by [doing this thing]”, so it’s unambiguous when we say that someone “may Telephone the Director of Operations”. There’s nothing else it could mean.

Purplebeard:

10-26-2010 16:54:56 UTC

against

Brendan:

10-26-2010 18:16:59 UTC

against

Roujo:

10-26-2010 22:56:06 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-27-2010 08:12:25 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-27-2010 08:16:17 UTC

Though I do want to ask if a Procedural veto is in order for either of ujalu’s proposals, since he’s still learning the ropes.

Kevan:

10-27-2010 08:48:12 UTC

veto Only needs a normal veto, since it’s next in the queue.