Saturday, October 19, 2013

Proposal: Disorderly Shutdown

Fails 3-4. — Quirck
Sorry, it’s 4-4. Automatic vote counter didn’t count turtlemoon’s vote since his nick was capitalized on the sidebar — Quirck

Adminned at 21 Oct 2013 08:46:51 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Disorder in the House”

Each paragraph of each dynastic rule other than this one shall have at the start one of two headers: MAY, or MUST.  If a paragraph is headed with MAY, it is an optional rule that can be followed, such as a rule defining a voluntary action.  If one part of a MAY paragraph is followed by an MN, the entire paragraph must be followed.  If an MN uses a rule contained in a MAY paragraph that affects another MN, the second MN cannot chose to ignore its effects.  If a paragraph is headed with MUST, the text of the paragraph is to be heeded at all times by all MNs.  If a paragraph is not headed by MAY or MUST, add a MUST header to that paragraph.

Each MN may Ignore one MUST paragraph.  Which MUST paragraph they are ignoring is tracked in the GNDT by recording the number of the rule, then a dash, followed by the number of the paragraph in that rule which they are ignoring.  For instance, if they were to ignore this paragraph (were it possible), a MN would write “2.1-2”.  This defaults to “”.  A MN may only change which rule they are Ignoring if they have Ignored the same rule continuously for the last 96 hours.

If an MN is Ignoring a paragraph of a rule, they treat the ruleset as if it did not contain that paragraph, except for any definitions that paragraph contains.  Any other MN who is not Ignoring that paragraph does not treat the ruleset as if it did not contain that paragraph, unless they take an action which is affected by a paragraph and affects an MN who is Ignoring that paragraph.  In that case, treat that paragraph as not existing for the purposes of affecting MNs which Ignore it only.

posted by Spitemaster at 19 Oct 2013 14:35:50 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

turtlemoon:

19-10-2013 15:31:01 UTC

for

I think 2.1-1 clause 4 contradicts 2.1-3 c 4. It seems to impel an Ignoring member to be affected by a para he Ignores, yet grants him liberty from a para he Ignores.

I like it ;-)

Spitemaster:

19-10-2013 16:13:05 UTC

You’d think that, but if you read Rule 3.3.6, ” If both contradicting parts are a Core Rule, or if both of them are a Dynastic Rule, the part with more limited scope applies. (e.g. if the rules “MNs may Kick each other” and “MNs may not kick each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, MNs may not Kick each other.)”  Thus the part with more limited scope (the later part) applies when they contradict.

RaichuKFM: she/her

19-10-2013 17:14:00 UTC

against “If a paragraph is not headed by MAY or MUST, add a MUST header to that paragraph.” That would make this Rule Ignorable, wouldn’t it? And possibly Core Rules.

Spitemaster:

19-10-2013 19:36:57 UTC

“Each paragraph of every dynastic rule other than this one[...]”
I thought the scope was fairly clear.

Murphy:

19-10-2013 19:41:45 UTC

for (possibly not effective or not yet effective)

Should be clarified as “Each paragraph of every dynastic rule other than the paragraphs of this one”.

Kevan: he/him

19-10-2013 21:18:02 UTC

I think RaichuKFM is correct, “paragraphs in the dynastic section are either X or Y; if a paragraph is neither X or Y, it is Y” seems enough to paint the core rules as well, if you aren’t establishing a special definition of “paragraph”.

against

Purplebeard:

19-10-2013 21:53:08 UTC

against

Bucky:

20-10-2013 03:00:48 UTC

There should be a special exception for proposal enactment, so that the enacting admin doesn’t have line-item veto power.

turtlemoon:

20-10-2013 03:22:45 UTC

I’m still not convinced that the last para of this rule has a more limited scope than the first para. Perhaps it would win over the first para because of it’s being slightly more negative? I think a bit of fine tuning might clear this up for me.

Murphy is exactly right. The current verbiage makes it uncertain whether “this one” refers to this rule or this paragraph. Maybe just a statement that “this rule shall contain no MUST or MAY paragraph headers”?

One thing that has me particularly worried is that I can’t find anything in the current rule set that prohibits a proposed rule containing duplicate paragraphs. And if this one rule - excepted from para headers - doesn’t prohibit that, then the best way to make a non-ignorable paragraph is to simply repeat it.  Of course, that may be the intention, of course :-)

quirck: he/him

20-10-2013 07:42:24 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

20-10-2013 11:32:36 UTC

for

scshunt:

21-10-2013 12:12:29 UTC

I find it clear that the rule does not give itself MUSTs.