Sunday, November 23, 2008

Proposal: That what fails cannot pass

vetoed—Yoda

Adminned at 23 Nov 2008 19:31:54 UTC

Add the following to the end of the core rule call “Enactment”.

If a proposal fails then not part of it, even if part of the proposal says “if this fails then”, can be enacted.

Add the following to the end of the fourth paragraph in the core rule called “Victory and Ascention”

Only if a DoV passes and is not failed can a Character Ascend.

To nip a little issue in the butt before it bites back.

Comments

Darknight:

11-23-2008 04:43:26 UTC

for epic. It fixes a prob ovangle talked about.

ovangle:

11-23-2008 04:49:57 UTC

against
Say I make 2 proposals

Proposal one:
“This is a proposal.”
which fails because it is utterly useless.

Proposal two:
“This does something useful.”
(Pretending that these four words could do something useful). When I go to enact the second proposal, i cannot ennact the word “This”, as it constitutes a part of proposal one.

ovangle:

11-23-2008 04:51:37 UTC

enact. one n

Darknight:

11-23-2008 04:54:06 UTC

umm… two could because even if the same words in both if two isn’t dependent on the first one passing it. idk whats going on in ya head, no offence

ovangle:

11-23-2008 05:00:55 UTC

Obviously I’m being a bit simplistic and pointing out an extreme case, I’m just demonstrating that your particular wording can be abused. What if an entire paragraph was copied from proposal one into proposal two, could that paragraph be enacted?

It’s just a small mistake in the way you worded your proposal, i don’t mean any offence.

Darknight:

11-23-2008 05:03:50 UTC

none taken. If its two sep proposal postings the second would be able to be enacted. my wording is based one proposal at a time

Darknight:

11-23-2008 05:04:20 UTC

hmm… have to fix spelling if this passes.

Bucky:

11-23-2008 06:23:03 UTC

against .  The first section is (a) meaningless, as the changes cannot happen anyway, and (b)is confusingly worded.

Darknight:

11-23-2008 06:25:22 UTC

oh ik that buck lol. tell ovangle though. I tried to explain it on the cut short proposal.  against s/k

ovangle:

11-23-2008 06:29:29 UTC

i never said anything about proposals, I could see they weren’t a problem, because they could be vetoed.

Darknight:

11-23-2008 09:38:29 UTC

veto please

Kevan:

11-23-2008 13:08:08 UTC

For what it’s worth, “Ascend” isn’t a term used by the ruleset, and there’s a loophole of any DoV (“Why, a DoV was passed and not failed only six months ago!”) being enough for a character to “Ascend”.

arthexis:

11-23-2008 17:50:52 UTC

against

Yoda:

11-23-2008 19:17:15 UTC

veto by request