Thursday, June 24, 2010

Proposal: Core Ruleset Defense

Times out and fails, 3-8. Josh

Adminned at 26 Jun 2010 05:05:31 UTC

In Rule 1.1,  after

The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.

add

The Core Rules and Glossary cay only be altered in manners specified by the Core Rules.

This changes nothing about how the Core Rules can be altered normally, but prevents any random scam from taking over. It also makes those crazy procedural rule-changing-rules safer.

Comments

Qwazukee:

24-06-2010 03:48:23 UTC

against Too specific, I think there are instances where this could be game-breaking. But mainly I don’t think we need it? The situation it seems to be guarding against ought to be warded off just by making sure we don’t pass unlear/clearly scam-tastic rules.

redtara: they/them

24-06-2010 03:50:12 UTC

for Typo: “cay”. Should be fixed by the enacting admin.

Klisz:

24-06-2010 03:54:19 UTC

Idle against. This means the dynastic rules and gamestate can be altered willy-nilly - and you might add a dynastic rule allowing you to edit the core rules, thus giving someone a dictatorship.

dbdougla:

24-06-2010 04:37:56 UTC

DC, this is an addition, not a replacement.

Idle for.

scshunt:

24-06-2010 04:50:34 UTC

for

Bucky:

24-06-2010 06:04:49 UTC

for .  This improves the safety and stability of the core ruleset and I approve of it.

Kevan: he/him

24-06-2010 08:03:46 UTC

This is useful for stopping dynastic rules from accidentally overwriting core ones, but would do nothing to prevent a scam. If someone is in a position where they can inject text of their choice into a dynastic rule, they’d only have to add a clause like “This rule is considered a Core Rule”.

lilomar:

24-06-2010 12:39:13 UTC

for

Rodney:

24-06-2010 14:44:21 UTC

Qwazukee: We’ve had rules that have done crazy things to other rules in the past. Previously, they always had to have a “No altering Core Rules or this rule.” clause. Now, if said clause were unintentionally left out, the damage would be limited.

Kevan: I’ll have to think on how to stop that kind of thing.

Hix:

24-06-2010 14:48:20 UTC

against

Kyre:

24-06-2010 15:32:24 UTC

against

Freezerbird:

24-06-2010 16:36:21 UTC

against per Kevan

Klisz:

24-06-2010 16:39:28 UTC

Ah, hold on, I had misread it - I thought it was a replacement (not an addition), and that the end said “[...] specified by the Ruleset”, not “[...] specified by the Core Rules”.

ais523:

24-06-2010 21:37:25 UTC

against per Kevan. (Incidentally, Agora is the only other nomic I know of with such a rule; it contains several pages of ruletext to try to make it stick, and even then loopholes are found in it on occasion.) Good idea, but I fear that we’d need to be so precise to make this work that the ruleset would double in size.

Bucky:

25-06-2010 00:10:02 UTC

CoV against per ais523

lilomar:

25-06-2010 00:18:45 UTC

against cov.

Kyre:

25-06-2010 00:33:23 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

25-06-2010 02:49:25 UTC

against