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.
I would have worded it “may be enacted once”. Are you foreign? (Just curious; I have no issues with this wording.)
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”.
Bizarre syntax that seems nearer to the “at some time in the past” meaning of the word “once”.
But the tense of the word ‘be’ seems to rule out this interpretation. It’s odd indeed, but does make sense.
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.
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.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
scshunt: