Saturday, August 07, 2010

Proposal: Group Stuff

Procedurally Vetoed. - lilomar

Adminned at 08 Aug 2010 21:02:06 UTC

Add a new red rule entitled “Identification”, with text as follows:

As soon as possible (but no more than once, unless stated otherwise by an enacted proposal, CFJ, or the ruleset) the High-Programmer shall secretly send every member of a group (as designated in rule 2.2.2 We Are Not Alone) a Private Message containing the identity of one other Citizen or Elephant who is a member of that group, if there is such a Citizen or Elephant, and if there is no such person, the PM shall make it clear as such.

Rule 2.2.2 notwithstanding, groups’ missions are located in a wiki document (the “Mission Document”) located at the following URL:
The Mission Document may not be modified except as explicitly stated in the ruleset.

Add a red rule as a subrule to Identification, and call it “Conspiracy”:

Any Elephant or Citizen who is a member of a group may send the High-Programmer a mission request in a PM. The mission request should contain a mission as laid out by rule 2.2.2. If the High-Programmer desires, he may make modifications to the mission request, and if he desires, he may add it to the Mission Document under the subsection for the group to which the Elephant or Citizen belongs. Upon its addition, it becomes a mission.

Add a red rule as a subrule to Identification, and call it “Executive Orders”:

The High-Programmer may add missions to the Mission Document as he wishes.

0.0001 seconds after this proposal is enacted, replace all instances of the word “elephant” in the rules created above with the twenty-fifth word in rule Information Clearance.



08-07-2010 15:57:42 UTC

Lol’d at the way you avoided ONLYCT


08-07-2010 16:44:27 UTC

against because of the Elephant nonsense.


08-07-2010 16:52:40 UTC

for Of course lilmar could just make a new entry to the CoC that covers what you did…


08-07-2010 17:08:10 UTC



08-07-2010 17:53:18 UTC

I am reminded of My Cousin Vinny.

“That was a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection.


against for getting around the CoC.


08-07-2010 20:27:24 UTC

Not sure if you can do sth. like “0.0001 seconds after this proposal is enacted, replace all instances of the word “elephant” in the rules created above with the twenty-fifth word in rule Information Clearance.”. How should this Proposal be enacted, if you need to do something to enact it after you have enacted it?


Ienpw III:

08-07-2010 22:27:17 UTC

We’ve had proposals which have had future effect before; that part’s fine.


08-08-2010 00:01:21 UTC



08-08-2010 07:55:13 UTC

[Ienpw] We have? They’re usually just “after this rule has been created, change all instances of X to Y”, not “after this proposal has been enacted”. I think it’s legal enough, but “three weeks after this proposal has been enacted, make some more game changes” would be problematic.


08-08-2010 08:02:46 UTC

There’s precedent somewhere that that sort of ongoing effect in a proposal creates a temporary anonymous dynastic rule to hold the effect. (IMO, it’s a rather suspicious precedent.)


08-08-2010 14:08:27 UTC

I think that if a proposal specified game changes to be made three weeks, several months, years, later passed, then we would be obligated to honor those changes (and the future-tense is trivial to get around by using present tense wording such as ‘wait for 100 years, then do such and such’). I also think that any such proposal would not pass, because such clauses would be a headache to keep track of.

against, because the effect of using the phrase “officers and citizens” is still there, even if you did avoid the CoC violation.


08-08-2010 16:39:32 UTC

[ais523] That does seem a very suspicious precedent - “Proposals can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed.”, so after enacting the first stage of a proposal with a three-week delay in the middle of it, that proposal is either still pending (in which case we can’t enact anything else until we finish this one) or enacted (in which case it is no longer legal for anyone to modify the gamestate “to include the specified effects of that Proposal”).

Ienpw III:

08-08-2010 20:11:15 UTC

Kevan: Unless the gamestate is modified such that it modifies itself in the future?

Ienpw III:

08-08-2010 21:54:45 UTC

S/K against; request procedural so I can repropose properly.


08-09-2010 04:01:35 UTC

procedural veto