Friday, January 06, 2006

Here’s to Chronos

Add to the end of the first paragraph of Law 1.1:

No Rule may contain a provision that bars itself from being altered and/or repealed. If at any moment a Rule exists or is altered in a manner that renders it to contain such a provision, the entirety of that Rule shall be considered void and with no effects on the Gamestate. The provisions on this paragraph supersedes any text in a Rule.



Elias IX:

01-06-2006 13:17:16 UTC

imperial But I don’t want to vote FOR it yet.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

01-06-2006 13:32:08 UTC


I think so.  We can have Rules that make OTHER Rules unrepealable, but not themselves.

The reason I specify that is not to discourage this from passing, but that it may be desirable to restrict the amendment of Rules, so long as the //restriction// is amendable.  That’s how it is in Suber, and this is a pretty nice way of getting that effect without totally overhauling the Ruleset.


01-06-2006 13:35:28 UTC

for But this isn’t a proposal

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

01-06-2006 13:35:40 UTC

An example:

Rule A: “Rule B may not be amended or repealed.”

Rule B: “Fish are red.”

That’s fine, because we can repeal Rule A to get to Rule B.

Rule A: “Rule B may not be amended or repealed.”

Rule B: “Fish are red.  Rule A may not be amended or repealed.

This is tricksy, but still not allowed.  The moment that Rule B says Rule A can’t be amended, it contains a provision that says IT can’t be amended either.

Self-protecting amendments can’t exist.  Daisy-chained protections won’t work either.  This is okay.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

01-06-2006 13:36:26 UTC

hahaha, no it isn’t a Proposal.  Crap.

veto  veto  veto  imperial  for  against  against  for  imperial  veto  against

Elias IX:

01-06-2006 21:30:56 UTC

Those are very pretty colours.

for  against  imperial  veto  against  for  for  imperial  veto  for  imperial  against
veto  veto  against  against  imperial  for  for  veto  against  imperial  for  veto