Proposal: You have to let it linger, II
Dies a horrible death. 1-12—Clucky
Adminned at 11 Feb 2007 17:47:44 UTC
Delete from the Glossary:
* It is noted that where a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, this does not apply to its own enactment unless explicitly stated (eg. a proposal proposing that enacted proposals earn their writer a banana when enacted would not earn a banana for its own writer, when enacted).
* Rules which trigger upon the Enacment or Failure of a Proposal are the responsibility of the Admin who Enacts or Fails it.
Add to the end of rule 1.5 Enactment:
All changes to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate mandated by a Proposal shall have effect starting at the time of its enactment, in the same order they are listed in said Proposal. Any change mandated by a Proposal which would linger for later triggering is void, unless it is made part of the Ruleset.
If a Proposal would cause a change to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate and that change is not made immediately after the Proposal’s Enactment, that change may be made later. In this case, the change shall be construed to be have made at the moment of the Proposal’s enactment.
If a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, that amendment doesn’t aplly to the enactment of that Proposal itself, unless explicitly stated. (Eg. a proposal creating a rule where enacted proposals earn their writer a banana when enacted would not earn a banana for its own writer, when enacted.)
Whenever an Admin enacts or fails a Proposal, e is also responsible for enforcing any rules which trigger upon the Enactment or Failure of a Proposal.
Comments
spikebrennan:
ChronosPhaenon:
What problemas are being introduced?
Hix:
Regardless, the paragraph that begins “If a Proposal would cause a change…” is very odd. On the face of it, it seems to say exactly the opposite of the previous paragraph (1st paragraph: changes must be made immediately. 2nd paragraph: changes may be made later). Are you trying to say that it’s not necessary for the admins to update documentation of the Gamestate at the exact instant of a Proposal’s passing? If so, duh.
ChronosPhaenon:
Problems this proposal solves:
- It removes normative text from the Glossary. As Kevan wisely pointed in his comment to the first version of this proposal, the Glossary should only be used to clarify ambiguity, not to carry rules.
- It explicitly states how Proposals are enacted and that lingering effects are void. I know we can outvote stupid proposals, but they stay around cluttering the queue, and sometimes we fail to reach a quorum of AGAINST votes… Explicitly saying how things work should help to avoid useless proposals made by newcomers cluttering the queue.
alethiophile:
Josh:
snowballinhell7001:
Secondly, why do we not like effects that take effect on a delay? I see no problem, if the sponsor wants the effects to linger for later and not have to make it part of the ruleset that these changes take effect at such and such a time. It’s the sponsor’s prerogative.
ChinDoGu:
Tiberias:
Amnistar:
Elias IX:
viewtyjoe:
Angry Grasshopper:
“All changes to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate mandated by a Proposal shall have effect starting at the time of its enactment, in the same order they are listed in said Proposal. Any change mandated by a Proposal which would linger for later triggering is void, unless it is made part of the Ruleset.”
I’m really not in favor of this idea, for various reasons.
Edometheus:
bandwagon FTW!