Friday, October 21, 2011

Call for Judgment: Correct fix for the loophole

CfJ is illegal because it does not “describe the issue” per Rule 1.7. -Ornithopter

Adminned at 22 Oct 2011 14:40:20 UTC

Amend Rule 1.7 (Calls for Judgment) by replacing “the CfJ may be enacted” with “the CfJ may once be enacted”.

The previous CfJ and Proposal would patch the wrong clause.  There might be a nicer fix by copying 1.4’s wording, but this works well enough.

Comments

scshunt:

10-21-2011 06:32:15 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

10-21-2011 06:57:44 UTC

for
I would have worded it “may be enacted once”. Are you foreign? (Just curious; I have no issues with this wording.)

Shadowclaw:

10-21-2011 10:09:28 UTC

for

omd:

10-21-2011 10:21:34 UTC

Nah, not foreign.  Yours might be better, but I used that wording to emphasize that it’s not “each Admin may enact the CfJ once”.

Kevan:

10-21-2011 10:34:12 UTC

against Bizarre syntax that seems nearer to the “at some time in the past” meaning of the word “once”.

Prince Anduril:

10-21-2011 12:59:57 UTC

for But the tense of the word ‘be’ seems to rule out this interpretation. It’s odd indeed, but does make sense.

ChronosPhaenon:

10-21-2011 13:22:19 UTC

against What Kevan said.

scshunt:

10-21-2011 14:34:03 UTC

dudes, there is nothing wrong with split infinitives

Roujo:

10-21-2011 15:00:58 UTC

for =P

Pavitra:

10-21-2011 15:21:17 UTC

for

ais523:

10-21-2011 16:31:28 UTC

for

Brendan:

10-21-2011 16:37:27 UTC

That’s not an infinitive.  against

Klisz:

10-21-2011 16:59:26 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

10-21-2011 18:49:57 UTC

against per Orni’s comment on the other post.

Darknight:

10-22-2011 01:30:03 UTC

imperial

Pavitra:

10-22-2011 02:09:56 UTC

What other post is this? imperial CoV

Pavitra:

10-22-2011 02:18:08 UTC

Ah, thank you.

That’s a silly reason. for

Josh:

10-22-2011 10:35:11 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

10-22-2011 18:22:45 UTC

It wasn’t a silly reason at the time, but since Bucky’s particular use of the loophole turned out to be illegal, I think we’re better off patching this before someone finds a legal way to exploit it with God knows what effects.

Sgeo:

10-22-2011 19:23:49 UTC

for Hopefully the weird wording isn’t abusable.

Ornithopter:

10-22-2011 21:25:08 UTC

Zuff lists this as illegal due to not explaining the issue. I consider the flavor text to explain the issue:

There were previous CfJs. They did not work right. This one works right.

Ornithopter:

10-22-2011 21:39:49 UTC

Ah, flavor text is not part of the post, per the Appendix.