Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Proposal: Ambiguity

Enacted 8-2. Josh

Adminned at 26 Aug 2021 07:57:13 UTC

Change the sentence “If, using the definition of “Misfit” at the time a proposal was posted (as opposed to the current definition), a proposal is a Misfit, then the Wielder of Vetoes is strongly encouraged to veto it” to read

If, when a proposal is posted, that proposal is a Misfit (using the definition of “Misfit” at the time of posting), then the Wielder of Vetoes is strongly encouraged to veto that proposal

Add the following to the list in the rule The Veto List:

It makes changes to not more than 4 rules.

If Proposal: Diffusing Everyone’s Focus was enacted, add and remove a full stop to the end of the rule Statistics.

The two indefinite articles and the unhinged “it” at the end of the sentence create an arguable whirlwind of ambiguity.

Did you know that lobster blood is colourless until it is exposed to air, at which point it turns blue?


Josh: he/they

24-08-2021 13:29:28 UTC

EAV for

Clucky: he/him

24-08-2021 16:49:40 UTC



24-08-2021 16:52:33 UTC

for  arrow


24-08-2021 16:59:15 UTC



24-08-2021 19:13:36 UTC

I don’t think “add and remove a full stop” counts as the proposal modifying the rule since there is no net change; however, this isn’t required to comply with pending mandates anyway.

Raven1207: he/they

24-08-2021 23:45:17 UTC


Trapdoorspyder: he/him

25-08-2021 13:37:20 UTC



25-08-2021 16:10:31 UTC

against Nice try; Proposals make changes to rules when they’re enacted, not when they’re posted, so this would make everything Misfit.

Clucky: he/him

25-08-2021 17:46:16 UTC

bucky raises an interesting point but I don’t wanna lose anymore empathy…

Josh: he/they

25-08-2021 18:14:18 UTC

I don’t think I agree with that - proposals can clearly make changes to the ruleset - I think that’s an overly restrictive interpretation of the language. I would not vote for a CfJ that argued that the sentence as written didn’t apply.

To me that just smacks if Bucky trying to preserve his status as most recent enacted author.


25-08-2021 18:29:09 UTC

Contrast with the wording of the existing entry: “It would, if enacted…”

The ambiguity this proposal fixes would arguably paper over the timing issue.

But the first revision makes the new Mandate unambiguous, that “when a proposal is posted” it “makes changes to not more than 4 rules”.

Although it might instead accept being unable to change rules as “not more than 4”, in which case it’s a no-op.

Janet: she/her

25-08-2021 22:28:49 UTC

against per Bucky

Darknight: he/him

25-08-2021 23:21:01 UTC



25-08-2021 23:44:42 UTC

I think being unable to change rules means that you’re changing no more than 4 rules, because you aren’t changing rules at all, and will be vetoing on that basis.

Chiiika: she/her

26-08-2021 02:42:23 UTC

for in this case, I trust Josh more than Bucky.