Thursday, August 05, 2010

Proposal: Down the Hatch

Procedurally Vetoed. - lilomar

Adminned at 06 Aug 2010 21:29:30 UTC

Enact a new RED Rule, “Maintenance Tunnels”:-

Any Citizen whose EVC on the proposal “Down the Hatch” was FOR is considered to be in Room 23-J of Sector BLN. If the rule “Report for Briefing” does not exist, any admin may repeal this rule.

If a Citizen with a Briefing Room Key and a Clearance of Red or Infrared made a vote of AGAINST on this proposal, the admin processing this proposal should increase that Citizen’s Treason score by two.

“Just hold your breath and keep walking, Citizen. If these PLC wiring diagrams are correct, this pharmaceutical effluent duct should take us right under an access panel in the Briefing Room, next to this Orange-clearance filing cabinet here, which I’m sure nobody will have moved.”



08-05-2010 09:07:20 UTC


Note that the “The locked Room” Rule does nothing because of Rule 3.2.5 entitled “Names”:

“Within the ruleset, a word only refers to the name of a Citizen if it is explicitly stated that it refers to a Citizen’s name.”

Therefore the Rule would need to state something like “The Citizens with the following names have a Briefing Key.”

This Rule indeed works fine :) But I don’t understand why you remove a Rule using a Rule and not a direct “Remove Rule 2.6.2”. Because of the Treason Point?


08-05-2010 09:16:48 UTC

Well, does midnight of August 7 mean “7th August 0:00 UTC” or “7th August 24:00 UTC”. Or does the Rule nothing because of “Abstract concepts of time (e.g. “dinnertime”, “twilight”) cannot be achieved until they fulfil one of these criteria.” (Rule 3.2.3) and the Rule does not mean anything?


08-05-2010 09:18:25 UTC

I think saying “the following Citizens” is explicit enough that it’s referring to names.

Not sure what your last sentence means. “Any admin may repeal this rule” is referring to the rule itself; it’s just cleaning itself up, once “Report for Briefing” leaves the ruleset.


08-05-2010 09:39:48 UTC

Ah ok, misunderstood that point, but still voting FOR.


08-05-2010 11:58:52 UTC



08-05-2010 13:53:56 UTC

According to the glossary, Aug. 7 00:00:00 is a valid time (Aug 7 starts on, and includes that time.) but Aug. 7 24:00:00 UTC isn’t, since the next day has already begun. So, when Aug. 7 starts, the rule activates.


08-05-2010 15:36:01 UTC

arrow  for


08-05-2010 17:29:09 UTC

Oh yeah, RoV,  arrow  for for the flavor text.


08-05-2010 18:14:41 UTC

against CoV

Votes can be FOR, but EVC’s can’t, so this proposal won’t do anything.

Ienpw III:

08-05-2010 19:46:25 UTC



08-05-2010 20:06:56 UTC



08-05-2010 20:09:28 UTC

No vote because voting against carries a consequence but voting FOR is bad because it’s broken.


08-05-2010 20:11:21 UTC

CoV: arrow veto
not proc, since Kevan still has a slot open, and I want to allow people to arrow if they so choose.