Changes are well written and make some things much clearer.

If it ain’t broke… And “counted FOR votes”.

agreed

In general, it looks good.  What functional changes are there?

The problem with allowing “against” votes to take part in this sort of thing is that (from experience),all they do is try to sabotage the proposal in any way they can.

by only counting “For” votes for changes you allow people who ahve problems with small sections of the proposal to still vote for, and just change those small sections, if you allow those that vote against, you are basically giving them double veto-power.  You say no, and then you say and…every rule I also disagree with.  4 people vote like that and even if a quorum is reached, no changes are made.

I’m not sure if there are any changes in how the game it played…I could be wrong but what I’m seeing is wording changes to make certain rules clearer, as well as regrouping rulings to make more sense.

because the proposal is just too darn long to carefully parse.

Rule 1.6. There’s a reason why CfJ’s are not proposals.

COV. On second thought, why are we repealing 1.8?

Aye, we would have double veto power under the current text. Change that. It is your duty as the proponent of this proposal to phrase the rules to have the proper effect, especially when, historically, an alliance of noble voters have, at great personal risk, banded together to selflessly combat proposals that utilize similar mechanics in an underhanded attempt to tyrannize the brave opposition into submission to the nefarious schemes attempted therein by crushing the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child in this great society should they dare to rise against the egomania-smitten black-guards whose naked ambition should shock even the most jaded of souls. Those who vote against should not be entirely disenfranchised from the process and barred from neutralizing particularly onerous sections.

These are the Core Rules we’re talking about here.  I doubt I’d be willing to change 4 pages worth of Core Rules under any circumstances.

Specific issues (but only some of them.  I mean I could go on and on…) :

“Changes to this document do not alter the Rulest” is bad, especially since LEGAL changes to the document do, in fact, alter the Ruleset.  We’ve had rules which allow for the Ruleset to be manipulated directly, with the intent that those manipulations DO alter the actual Ruleset (provided the manipulations are legal).  It goes without saying that ILLEGAL changes to the document have no effect (that’s what “illegal” means).

Creating the subrule for “status effects” (LOL) in the core rules is needlessly complicated.  We don’t need to lump “admin” “idle” and “investor” together under a single heading.

While I’m aware that the Rules are (and probably always will be) blurry on the distinction between an Actor, and the real-life human(s) who control the Actor, I think you’ve made it way too blurry in the place it matters the most:  the line “A single person may not control more than one Actor within BlogNomic.” replaced with the weak “An Actor may not create multiple accounts to participate in BlogNomic.”  Also, the current sentence explaining what punishment is to be expected for breaking this rule should not be removed.

Major changes to the voting and enactment process are being made here (not all of them for the better), and should be proposed separately.

Proposed changes to the Call for Judgement system are not acceptable at all.  For starters, the Investor should not have VETO power.  Nor should IMPERIAL votes be allowed.  Nor should the poster’s vote automatically be FOR, nor should the poster be disallowed from changing eir AGAINST vote.  Remember that, sometimes, in the interest of fairness, a CfJ will be raised by someone who does not want it to pass; or the same Actor will make 2 CfJs, which suggest opposing solutions to the same problem.

Major changes to the Hiatus rules, and the Victory process in general.  Of particular note are the fact that Dynastic Rules are automatically repealed upon victory; the new Emperor is forbidden from changing keywords other than “Actor” and “Investor”, and even then, only in the Ruleset; and out of the blue, the new Emperor suddenly gets a magical rule-creating power.

The proposal does not take into consideration the automatic renumbering of Rules that will occur should Rule 1.8 be deleted.  (in particular, no one will be able to vote on a DoV during Hiatus, as the rule which permits doing so will not be one of Rules 1.2, 1.6, 1.7 or 1.9.

Finally, because you have moved vital information all around from one rule to another, it would be a disaster if, as you are allowing to happen should 4 FOR voters wish it, some rules are changed by this proposal while some are not changed.

Fortunately, it only takes 4 of us to veto this entire proposal, as I now intend to do.
Rule 1.1 Rule 1.2 Rule 1.4 Rule 1.5 Rule 1.6 Rule 1.8 Rule 1.9 Rule 3.3

CoV. Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, Rule 1.4, Rule 1.5, rule 1.6, Rule 1.8, Rule 1.9, Rule 3.3. What Hix said, and more.

CoV. Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, Rule 1.4, Rule 1.5, rule 1.6, Rule 1.8, Rule 1.9, Rule 3.3. What Hix said, and more.

Just one more…

Hey.  Sorry for the monster post.  Thanks to everyone for the comments.  I realize that changing the core rules is a big step and must obviously be taken carefully.  I’ve tried to keep the functionality of the rules (except in certain areas where I’ve introduced deliberate changes), and close some existing loopholes while not introducing new ones (though I’ve probably not succeeded in that endeavor).

I suppose it might help to give a bit of commentary with what I was trying to achieve with this proposal.

First, the cosmetic changes:
-I tried to eliminate instances of using a term before it is defined.  Not a big change but hopefully it makes things clearer.
-The changing of abbreviations of game terms into the actual terms.  Again, for clarity’s sake.

Now the functional changes:
-Added a provision to make the wiki ruleset a representation of an abstract Ruleset.  This is to prevent the wiki page being changed through a loophole and the game coming to a standstill.  The situation I’m thinking about is something like an admin deciding that the rules for Calls for Judgment and Proposals are an “obvious” typographical error.  While this may seem like an obvious violation of the rules, it is a judgment call on the part of the admin/players, with the ability to launch Calls for Judgment removed (according to one interpretation of the rules), the game would grind to a halt.  While this has only a minor effect in reality (the players could form a new game and exclude the admin), why have the loophole in the first place?
-Changed the requirement for the use of Spivak pronouns to be limited to the Ruleset.  The previous rule was too broad (I’m violating the rules since I’m not using a Spivak pronoun to refer to myself.  And even if you construe the rule to refer to the third-person case, why should I be restricted in referring to another Actor if I know eir gender and the Actor doesn’t have a problem with my use of a specific pronoun?)
-Slight change in the way a majority is calculated… this should be the same as the previous ruleset in most cases but may be off by a vote or so in some cases.  I don’t think this will have any significant impact.
-The Investor can cast a vote of deferential… I don’t think this should have a significant impact either.
-A Proposal can be resolved if no one has commented or voted on it for 24 hours.  This is just a way to speed up the resolution of the proposals… I don’t think this breaks anything, as anyone can keep it from being resolved by making a comment (up to the 48 hour mark), and it could help to shave off the deadweight proposals that get a few negative votes and then just sit in the queue until they time out.
-Slightly changed the ascension process by automatically repealing all dynastic rules, as well as changed what the Investor can do with eir Ascension Address.  The reason for the automatic repeal is that the point of themes for the dynasties appears to be to provide some sort of variety and differentiation among games of BlogNomic.  Since Dynastic rules are generally closely tied to the theme (at least from what I’ve seen so far), they are probably ill-suited for the new theme.  If the Investor does wish to keep some rules, e can merely introduce them in eir proposal.

Now to address some comments:

Rodney is right about Rule 1.6.  I screwed it up.  Hopefully that change won’t go through and I can try again.

The deleted rules have had their contents subsumed by other rules.

I deliberately made the limit to overturn changes low so that if there was something amiss it could be easily excised.

I know that it’s a lot of work to make changes to the rules, but perhaps the work can be divided among Admins?  Or maybe if Rule 1.1 passes, the wiki page is only a reflection of the rules, and since it doesn’t specifically bar non-admins from making edits to wiki Ruleset page, some non-Admins could take on the load.

I’d be interested in knowing what rules allow for modification of the document that can’t be done just by modifying the abstract ruleset.  In any case, one could include a provision to allow those rules to work (since none exist now, I don’t see how this is a problem… the proposal introducing such a rule could also include the above provision).

I agree that status effects is a lousy term.  I apologize; it was late (but we can change the term at any time).  However, that was done just for clarity (as part of the above cosmetic changes), and it makes it clear that one can have multiple modifiers to one’s status.

How is the multiple accounts statement blurry?  An Actor is a person participating in BlogNomic, and that person may not make multiple accounts.  I agree that it could be worded more strongly, but I don’t think it will break the game as it stands.  I removed the other statement because it was a little vague and because a CfJ can accomplish the same thing.

Yes, I messed up Rule 1.6. :(

My motivation for automatic repeal is listed above.  I limited the Investor to changing those terms only because as far as I could tell they were the only ones related to the theme; allowing all keywords could allow the Investor to turn the ruleset into an unreadable mess.  Of course, more terms could easily be added to the list of words that the Investor may change.  The Investor’s Ascension Address Proposal power could be reworded, I agree.  Nevertheless, it isn’t that much more powerful than a normal proposal; it’s just intended to let the Investor get the ball rolling.

It’s true that no one will be able to vote on a DoV if 1.8 is deleted.  However, this can easily be amended if that portion of the Proposal passes.  The DoV will still time out in normal time in the meantime.

The amount of information that has been moved around is relatively small.  I have tried to keep important, relevant game mechanics in the same rule as they were previously.  I think that any discrepancies that arise can be amended.

In any case, thanks again to everyone for their comments.  I know that this seems kind of overwhelming, and that tinkering around with the Core Rules will inspire a knee-jerk reaction regardless.  Also, I realize that the proposal could be worded better.  But, I think that this proposal closes a couple of loopholes, and adds some functionality without breaking the system (except the CfJ rule).  It may not be much of one, but I think it is a marginal improvement over the current ruleset.  The rules are a continual work in progress, and I just want to take it one step in the right direction.  I’m just asking for everyone to consider this with an open mind; if the Proposal still doesn’t pass muster, I’d be interested in knowing what the sticking points are (since I think everything raised so far can be handled).  Thanks again!

  (just to be clear, I’m mentioning Rule 1.6 here).

Axeling: I also see mentions of Rules 1.1 and 1.8 in your comment, not just Rule 1.6.  So, given Hix’s, Robert’s, and Chronos’s votes, that only leaves the changes to Rule 1.2, Rule 1.4, Rule 1.5, Rule 1.9, and Rule 3.3.

(Oh, look at all those rules that I just mentioned.  I guess all the changes go away.)

Axeling, why don’t you try and propose once change at a time?

All right.  I’d be interested in knowing what else is wrong with it in any case.
Rule 1.1, Rule 1.6, Rule 1.8 (just making sure Rule 1.8 is counted)