Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Proposal: Activation by omission [Special Case]

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 28 May 2020 16:03:18 UTC

1. Amend rule 3 (“Special Case”) as follows:

‘’‘Special Case Rules’‘’ can be Active or Inactive. The text of a Special Case Rule that is Inactive is flavour text.

Special Case Rules have a ‘’‘Default Status’‘’, which can be Active or Inactive. If the title of a Special Case Rule includes an asterisk (“*”), its Default Status is Inactive; otherwise, its Default Status is Active.

If the title of a Special Case Rule includes “[X]”, where X is either “Active” or “Inactive”, then its status is X; otherwise, its status is its Default Status.

When a new Dynasty is started, the Ascension Address may list any number of existing Special Case Rules to be set to a status other than their respective Default Status. All other Special Case Rules are set to their respective Default Status.

2. Omit “[Active]” from the title of each of the subrules of rule 3 (“Special Case”).

Some tidying up. 1. No changes of substance; just a restructuring that might benefit people unfamiliar with the rule. 2. The recent changes to the rule make the “[Active]”/”[Inactive]” tags redundant most of the time, so why not get rid of them? This way any deviation from the default will pop more.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

28-05-2020 10:28:07 UTC

Showing the “[Active]” tags also emphasises to the reader that each one is a rule which is currently Active and may become otherwise, though.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

28-05-2020 11:09:03 UTC

Indeed. But if we prefer it that way, we could remove the “if” part and just require the tags. Otherwise we could end up with a mess.

ais523:

28-05-2020 11:30:49 UTC

against I think the explicit “[Active]” versus “[Inactive]” is more helpful for new players, and that experienced players won’t have issues tracking the rules in any case.

If you’re looking for a simplification, just get rid of the concept of default-inactive special cases; we don’t have any at the moment and there probably won’t be any added for a while.

ais523:

28-05-2020 11:31:29 UTC

(Also, it’s a bad idea to refer to rules by number, as the numbering can get thrown off due to repeals. Not everyone has the numbers visible, either.)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

28-05-2020 12:13:12 UTC

[ais523] I don’t mean to undo this relatively recent change… It had a purpose and might prove useful. (Relevant conversation here and here.) I mostly wanted the rule itself to flow better, which I’ll still do one way or another. If people like the tags, though, they’d better not be optional.

(I mention both the number and the title of the rule because renamings are also possible, hehe. I’d rather not resort to wordiness like “the rule entitled ‘X’ at the time of this proposal’s submission”... In any case, both eventualities are pretty rare for non-dynastic rules.)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

28-05-2020 12:59:10 UTC

I think this does the job of streamlining the rule.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

28-05-2020 13:11:45 UTC

against

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

28-05-2020 13:33:18 UTC

Self-killing.  against