Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Proposal: Cleaning up the dictatorship scam

Passes 9-2. Josh

Adminned at 26 Jun 2010 05:02:19 UTC

If the Ruleset contains a rule which currently has, or has had in the past, the text

The @ named Darth Cliche is the Dictator. The Dictator may alter the ruleset or gamestate in any way, at any time. This rule may not be repealed or modified except by the Dictator.

then create a new rule with the following text, except with NN replaced throughout by the number of that rule:

For the purpose of the rule numbered NN (but not for other rules), this rule is an @ named Darth Cliche, and the Dictator; this rule takes priority over any other rule which would make that impossible. As soon as this rule is created, rule NN is immediately repealed (and an admin should update the Ruleset on the wiki to allow for that change, if necessary). Then this rule immediately repeals itself (and an admin should update the Ruleset to allow for that change, if necessary).

It is legitimate to merge all changes that would be made to the Ruleset by this proposal into one change, or into no change at all if it would not change as a result.

If the scam was previously valid (and I think it may have been), but then the CFJ to get rid of it passed, it’s possible the dictatorship rule is still in the ruleset, just unusable. So let’s make sure it’s gone for good; this is just cleanup. Because the dictatorship rule makes itself impossible to repeal except by an @ named Darth Cliche, let’s make an rule that’s an @ named Darth Cliche to get rid of it.

Comments

lilomar:

23-06-2010 16:04:20 UTC

for

Kyre:

23-06-2010 16:07:56 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

23-06-2010 16:21:58 UTC

against “The number of that rule” could be referring to the number of your new rule.

ais523:

23-06-2010 16:28:33 UTC

@Ienpw-III: no it couldn’t, because the proposal establishes the text of the rule before creating it, and thus the new rule doesn’t exist yet to refer to. Your interpretation would require text along the lines of “except with NN replaced throughout with the number that the new rule will receive”.

redtara: they/them

23-06-2010 16:31:48 UTC

“If the Ruleset contains a rule which currently has, or has had in the past, the text ‘...’ then create a new rule with the following text, except with NN replaced throughout by the number of that rule:”

I still think it’s ambiguous which rule is being referred to.

Galdyn:

23-06-2010 17:06:24 UTC

for

Hix:

23-06-2010 19:39:37 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

23-06-2010 20:59:13 UTC

for @Ien: I don’t think that would be an issue since the rule in question is a core rule so i doubt its numbers changing anytime soon.

Bucky:

23-06-2010 23:08:16 UTC

for

scshunt:

23-06-2010 23:42:13 UTC

for
Even though this proposal will have no effect since the CfJ determined that the change never occurred.

Rodney:

24-06-2010 02:19:54 UTC

for For whatever it does.

Qwazukee:

25-06-2010 16:48:32 UTC

against Doesn’t really do anything

dbdougla:

25-06-2010 21:46:56 UTC

for