Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Proposal: End of the Line

Reaches quorum, 11-1. Josh

Adminned at 06 Apr 2011 11:56:54 UTC

To the end of the first bullet point in Rule 3.2.2 (Rules and Proposal), add:-

  • Unless otherwise specified, a new Dynastic rule shall be placed at the end of the Dynastic Rules.

Lilomar invalidated a proposal by enacting the rule from the previous proposal at the top of the dynastic rules instead of the end, breaking the number referencing of all later proposals in the process. I’d argue that this was altering the gamestate in a manner not specified by the ruleset - the proposal didn’t call for the rules to be renumbered - but we may as well explicitly rule out any future weirdness in this area.

posted by Kevan at 05 Apr 2011 07:11:53 UTC Comments (17)

Comments

Florw:

05-04-2011 07:13:06 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

05-04-2011 07:29:21 UTC

for Although I found the scam delightful.

Ely:

05-04-2011 07:37:10 UTC

for [Josh] Yes but I agree it was illegal per Kevan.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-04-2011 07:41:04 UTC

I don’t think it was. Enacting the rule as 2.1 didn’t directly alter the gamestate - it just changed how the ruleset was interpreted, which isn’t currently covered.

ais523:

05-04-2011 07:49:41 UTC

The section numbers aren’t part of the ruleset, and there have been dynasties with rules routinely enacted for ruleset logic rather than numbering preservation in the past (the First of lilomar). Besides, the rule numbers are going to go out of sequence if you repeal a rule, anyway.

There used to be a rule saying that rules had to be referenced by name, not number. I think this is why.

Ely:

05-04-2011 07:50:15 UTC

Yes it may be, since we never define rule numbers. That’s the why I always name the rules to change.

Purplebeard:

05-04-2011 08:42:22 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

05-04-2011 12:00:02 UTC

for

Subrincinator:

05-04-2011 12:57:33 UTC

for Nice.

Ely:

05-04-2011 13:10:18 UTC

Oops didn’t see ais’s Comment - conflicted.
I wanted to say the same thing.

Roujo: he/him

05-04-2011 14:46:56 UTC

for

lilomar:

05-04-2011 17:51:58 UTC

for
:-)

lilomar:

05-04-2011 17:53:39 UTC

Also: what Josh and ais said, but feel free to CFJ if you think it was illegal (the sooner the better, retconning the ruleset is a pain)

Chivalrybean:

05-04-2011 23:12:42 UTC

for

Saakara:

05-04-2011 23:39:36 UTC

against

Ely:

06-04-2011 06:07:41 UTC

No actually I think it was legal.

Darknight: he/him

06-04-2011 06:28:56 UTC

for