Monday, December 23, 2019

Proposal: [Appendix] The end of the queue?

Timed out 0 votes to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 27 Dec 2019 18:51:36 UTC

Amend rule 4.3.2 (“Rules and Proposals”) as follows.

Repeal the subparagraph—

Unless otherwise specified, a new Dynastic rule shall be placed at the end of the Dynastic Rules.

For the subparagraph—

If a new rule is created by a Proposal and its location is not noted in that Proposal, that new rule is to be placed in the Dynastic Rules.


If a new rule is created by a Proposal and its location is not noted in that Proposal, that new rule is to be placed at the end of the Dynastic Rules.

Finally getting to cut a few words…

No change of substance here, as far as I can tell.


Kevan: he/him

24-12-2019 15:37:22 UTC

Not sure about this. Historically I think those two rules are doing two different things, and that when the second says “location” it really means “section”.

Is a proposal of “enact a new core rule called X” specifying a location, or does this new wording put in into the dynastic section? If referencing core is sufficient to be considered a location, then “enact a new dynastic rule called Y” won’t trigger the new clause, so there’s no requirement to put it at the end of the dynastic rules.


The Duke of Waltham: he/him

24-12-2019 17:20:24 UTC

Well, that explains a few things. The rules will still need clarification, though.

And I’d like to be able to use “section” here, but the definition of “rule” in the glossary might cause problems: “Each individually numbered section of the Ruleset is a rule, including sections that are subrules of other rules.” The top-level sections enumerated in the first paragraph of the Ruleset are also individually numbered and would need to be excepted from this definition. (This probably needs to be done anyway: the dynastic ruleset is not a rule.)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

25-12-2019 00:47:23 UTC

The use of “section” in the aforementioned definition of “rule” is apt and easy to understand, and I’d be loath to propose changing it. (It also corresponds to the basic unit of Acts of Parliament and U.S. Code titles.)

However, the “Section One” etc. terminology in rule 1.1 could be changed. It’s not used anywhere else, and I think either “Part” or “Chapter” would be more appropriate for large sets of sections/rules. This can be done, if needed, in conjunction with adding the term to the glossary, though I think a simple “The Ruleset comprises four Parts/Chapters:” addition at the beginning of that sentence would be sufficient for us to use the term in other rules. (An update of the “rule” definition might still be needed.)

The two rules discussed in this proposal can benefit from such treatment: one for placing a rule in the dynastic rules if its Part/Chapter is left unspecified (rather than the unclear “location”), and one for placing a new rule at the end of the respective Part/Chapter assigned to it if its position within it is left unspecified, rather than doing this only for dynastic rules.

Another rule that could be generalised along these lines is the scope clause of the Prioritisation rule: “If both contradicting parts are Core Rules, or if both of them are Dynastic Rules, the part with more limited scope applies.” Perhaps there is a reason that conflicting Appendix and Special Case rules are not included, but at least brevity wouldn’t be that reason.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

26-12-2019 23:06:30 UTC

Hmm, I’m leaning towards “Chapter”; “Part” sounds rather generic.

Also, I’m voting against myself (though I can’t self-kill just yet).