Thursday, May 26, 2011

Protosal: One step back, one sideways. Jump.

Add to the Core Rule “Ruleset and Gamestate”:
If two parts of the Rulesset contradict each other, precedence shall be construed in the following order:

  1. The Appendix has precedence over any Rule;
  2. A Dynastic Rule has precedence over a Core Rule, unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule;
  3. If both contradicting parts are a Core Rule, or if both of them are a Dynastic Rule, the part with more limited scope applies. (e.g. if the rules “Players can Fight each other” and “Players cannot Fight each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, players cannot fight each other.)
  4. If two parts with the same scope contradict each other, the negative rule applies. (e.g. with “Players can Fight each other on Tuesdays” and “Player cannot fight each other on Tuesdays”, Players cannont fight each other on Tuesdays.)

I found this one at the Ruleset Draft. Credit to Chronos Phaenon.
I don’t know why and when it has been repealed (or if it has been part of the ruleset at all), and I don’t want to mess with the Core Rules, so I’d ask what do you all think. (additionally, I don’t have free slots at the moment.)
EDIT: changed Glossary to Appendix.

posted by Ely at 26 May 2011 13:12:43 UTC Comments (4)

Comments

SingularByte: he/him

26-05-2011 13:45:34 UTC

If the rule “Calls for judgement” said it couldn’t be overruled by dynastic rules, I’d definitely be happy with this.

ais523:

26-05-2011 14:45:00 UTC

There was something like this proposed a while ago; I was in favour of it, but it failed. You should also have a tiebreak for cases where the dynastic rules give two conflicting definitions of the same thing (that sort of thing has happened at Agora all too often); I suggest just taking the one later in the ruleset. (Also, I thought there was a pending/recently enacted proposal to rename the Glossary?)

ais523:

26-05-2011 14:45:44 UTC

Also, we had a case of the Glossary contradicting itself at the end of my last dynasty; it’d be nice to cover that case too.

Ely:

26-05-2011 15:57:35 UTC

[singularbyte]:
Yes, but we’d need to protect at least the first paragraph of Voting too, if not the whole “Voting”, and I think that it kills many many interesting options. If someone makes a bad Dynastic rule about Voting and it passes, then we deserved it.
But, if it’d make someone feel happy and safe from the Big Bad Dynastic Rule With Precedence(brrr!), it’s an option.
[ais]
“If two parts with the same scope contradict each other, the negative rule applies.”
I think it covers the glossary too. In that case, Purplebeard’s actions would have been illegal I guess.
Right, we have no glossary anymore. Welcome Mrs. Appendix.