Friday, May 27, 2011

Proposal: From the bottom to the top.

Reaches quorum 8-2 and is enacted. -coppro

Adminned at 28 May 2011 13:07:42 UTC

Replace all the text in Appendix Rule “Prioritisation” to:

If two parts of the Ruleset contradict each other, precedence shall be construed in the following order:
  1. The Appendix has precedence over any Rule;
  2. A Dynastic Rule has precedence over a Core Rule, unless that Core Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Dynastic Rule;
  3. 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 “Players may Kick each other” and “Players may not kick each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, players may not Kick each other.)
  4. If two parts with the same scope contradict each other, the negative rule applies. (e.g. with “Players may Punch a Spaceman on Friday” and “Player may not Punch Spacemen on Friday”, then Players may not Punch Spacemen on Friday.)

Add to the Rule “Calls for Judgement”:

This Rule may not be overruled by Dynastic Rules.

Here it comes.

Comments

Josh:

05-27-2011 07:53:27 UTC

against I don’t think that giving dynastic rules precedence over core rules is a good idea.

Ely:

05-27-2011 07:56:47 UTC

It’s what we do all the time.

Josh:

05-27-2011 08:12:36 UTC

Sure, on a case-by-case, explicitly stated basis, but the sweeping principle is one that I’m uncomfortable with.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 09:40:12 UTC

against I don’t like #1,#2, or #4.

Ely:

05-27-2011 09:56:15 UTC

#1 is fundamental, in my opinion.
#2 is debatable
#4 will soon be in the ruleset anyway.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 11:37:48 UTC

#1 The Appendix already states, “A keyword defined in this glossary supersedes that defined by a rule.”
#2 I agree with Josh on being explicit.
#4 It wouldn’t surprise me if it got into the ruleset and it is pretty standard, but I’m not a fan, personally.

Ely:

05-27-2011 12:41:20 UTC

#1 Has no effect since Glossary and Appendix are two different words. Our Appendix does more than defining keywords, at this point.
#4 is a decent standard. Better a decent one than none at all.

qwertyu63:

05-27-2011 12:53:50 UTC

for I see no problems here.

SingularByte:

05-27-2011 13:29:02 UTC

for

Kevan:

05-27-2011 17:28:28 UTC

for #2 seems unnecessary, but I can’t think of an example where it would be a problem.

Yoda:

05-27-2011 20:06:00 UTC

for Like I’ve said before, the onus is on the proposal makers and the voters not to vote something in that breaks the core mechanics.

Darknight:

05-28-2011 03:11:53 UTC

imperial

Galtori:

05-28-2011 17:49:11 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

05-28-2011 19:44:03 UTC

for