Friday, August 13, 2021

Proposal: Edge Cases [Appendix]

Passes 8-0 with quorum FOR. -Bucky

Adminned at 15 Aug 2021 22:45:02 UTC

In the rule “Prioritization”, change

If two contradicting parts have the same scope, the negative rule applies

to

If two contradicting parts have the same scope, or have scopes that only overlap where they contradict each other, the negative rule applies

For example, the Factory can cast veto votes on proposals using the VETO icon, but idle Workers can’t cast votes. Can an idle Factory still veto? The current rules are unhelpful because neither rule’s scope usually has anything to do with the other’s; rather, they only overlap at all in the extremely rare case of a VETO icon posted by an idle Factory.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

13-08-2021 19:20:50 UTC

isn’t scope in this context where it is in the ruleset? So both of those have the core rules scope?

Bucky:

13-08-2021 19:57:47 UTC

It’s in context of the previous entry, “If two contradicting parts have equal precedence, the part with more limited scope applies.”

Clucky: he/him

13-08-2021 20:04:01 UTC

got it. seems reasonable?

ais523:

13-08-2021 20:16:36 UTC

“scope” in this context is nothing to do with the location in the ruleset, it’s entirely about the set of circumstances in which the rule applies.

This defines a case that wasn’t defined before, and in a sensible way, so it looks like a good proposal.

Clucky: he/him

13-08-2021 20:54:48 UTC

thank you again bucky for explaining what scope was in this context

ais523:

13-08-2021 23:58:39 UTC

for

lemon: she/her

14-08-2021 01:32:35 UTC

for sure, altho it seems to me that “the factory can do X” is narrower scope than “idle workers can’t do X”, bc the former affects the actions of a single individual & a single type of vote

Clucky: he/him

14-08-2021 01:39:49 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

14-08-2021 10:13:39 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

15-08-2021 04:20:47 UTC

for

Vovix: he/him

15-08-2021 16:26:11 UTC

for

pokes:

15-08-2021 20:43:13 UTC

for