Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Debate on Motion to Avoid Mal-formed Motions - 01:31, 27 Feb 2007 (GMT)

Whereas some Motions may be posted in an invalid format; and

whereas mal-formed Motions may hinder the playability of Blognomic, therefore,

I move the adoption of the following resolution, that any Iudex may edit the formatting of a Mal-Formed Motion to make it conform to the correct format. Any Motion so edited may have a special Subsidiary Motion named “Motion to Dismiss”, which only effect if adopted shall be mark its Main Motion as Lost.

posted by ChronosPhaenon at 27 Feb 2007 10:38:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

27-02-2007 15:09:45 UTC

what is the definition of “Mal-Formed”?

Hix:

27-02-2007 15:32:11 UTC

Well, the standard English definition of “mal-formed” will have to apply in the absence of a specific Nomic definition, but that shouldn’t be a problem.

My concern is that, if a “Motion” is mal-formed, then it isn’t really a Motion at all, and thus is not part of the Gamestate.  Maybe Motions which, in the view of the Arbiter Iuri, are valid except for minor formatting errors should be permitted.

ChronosPhaenon:

27-02-2007 15:50:41 UTC

Hix, I’ll second an amendment in those lines.

Amnistar: he/him

28-02-2007 17:11:35 UTC

Mkay, put up an amendment along those lines.

ChronosPhaenon:

28-02-2007 17:46:25 UTC

“Interrupted until appreciation of Secondary Motion to Prevent Misunderstandings - 17:10, 28 Feb 2007 (GMT)”

Hix:

28-02-2007 19:09:30 UTC

Debate closed

Hix:

28-02-2007 19:12:49 UTC

I’m afraid it’s true….  Debate automatically closed at 15:50:41, 28 Feb 2007 (GMT), even though no one posted the “Debate closed” warning.  voting now commences on the (unamended) Main Motion, and will end at 15:50:41, 1 Mar 2007 (GMT).

ChronosPhaenon:

28-02-2007 19:27:03 UTC

I disagree:

First Point: There is a comment by Amnistar at 02-28-2007 17:11:35 UTC (which would set closure for 03-01-2007 17:11:35 UTC)

Second point:

“Comments interrupting Debate or resuming it shall not be considered for that purpose, neither shall be counted the time elapsed between such comments”

Time elapsed between my comment interrupting Debate and the one (not done yet) resuming it, should not be counted in the 24 hours.

Hix:

28-02-2007 19:31:02 UTC

At the time Amnistar made the comment to which you are referring, over 24 had already passed since the previous comment.

ChronosPhaenon:

28-02-2007 19:44:05 UTC

You’re right, I’m reverting my comment at the Motion pages