Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Proposal: Enough with the foot faults

SK.—Chronos

Adminned at 12 Jan 2007 08:22:22 UTC

Proposed new rule. 

If an Olympian posts a proposal that does not expressly state that it is a proposal to add a new Rule to the Ruleset (but also does not expressly state that it is any other kind of proposal such as, for instance, a proposal to amend an existing Rule), then it shall be presumed that the proposal is to add a new Rule to the ruleset, which new rule would (if duly approved) consist of the text of the proposal (and omitting any preliminary text that is clearly a preamble).

posted by spikebrennan at 10 Jan 2007 19:59:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

Clucky: he/him

10-01-2007 20:57:00 UTC

against

ChinDoGu:

10-01-2007 21:56:02 UTC

imperial Ill go with the coaches decision on this one.

Elias IX:

10-01-2007 23:53:51 UTC

against

JoshuaGross:

11-01-2007 01:59:25 UTC

This doesn’t make any sense. If they don’t state it’s a new rule…. then it’s a new rule… as opposed to what? Or would this override “proposed amendment”? Does this solve any problems? I hate to be such a conformist, but

against

Bucky:

11-01-2007 02:01:53 UTC

against  against  against  against

spikebrennan:

11-01-2007 03:23:35 UTC

My reasoning was: even if the magic words “Add a new rule” are missing from a proposal, if you and me and Bobby McGee all know that the intent of a particular proposal is to add the proposed text as a new rule, then the proposal should not be deemed defective merely for want of the words “Add a new rule”.

ChronosPhaenon:

11-01-2007 12:55:09 UTC

Intent is a dangerous thing. Written words are safer than unwritten ones.

Hix:

11-01-2007 21:59:08 UTC

against Egad, no.  Just put “add a new rule” in your proposals if and only if that’s what you want it to do.

spikebrennan:

12-01-2007 02:17:42 UTC

against to help put this turkey out of its misery.