Monday, January 25, 2021

Proposal: I don’t know that rule

Passes 7-0-1 with more than Quorum in favor. -Bucky

Adminned at 25 Jan 2021 22:48:28 UTC

After “an Emperor who is not a Signatory to a Treaty is not required to follow its provisions, and generally cannot take actions defined by that Treaty unless it explicitly states otherwise.”

add “When a treaty mentions to ‘Emperor’ or ‘Emperors’ it only refers to Emperors who are also Signatories of that Treaty unless it explicitly states otherwise”

Right now “Treaties only bind their Signatories;” is a bit unclear

Should a treaty saying “An Emperor may steal 10 coins from another Emperor” allow signatories of that treaty to steal coins from any emperor, even those who are not signatories?

I’d rather default to only applying to signatories than the other way around. Though we should clarify either way.

posted by Clucky at 25 Jan 2021 08:39:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

25-01-2021 10:19:40 UTC

for

Coderblaze:

25-01-2021 12:38:17 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

25-01-2021 14:01:23 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

25-01-2021 14:09:30 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2021 15:23:02 UTC

for

Bucky:

25-01-2021 16:32:39 UTC

for

Bucky:

25-01-2021 17:08:48 UTC

Hmm… CoV imperial for further discussion.

Our one treaty in the proposal pipeline is explicit about “Signatories” vs. “Emperors”. The salient question is whether we want a treaty-defined definition to apply to non-Signatory Emperors by default.

pokes:

25-01-2021 20:06:46 UTC

for I unidle, quorum becomes 6.

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2021 20:11:15 UTC

@Bucky the rules already suggest that “An Emperor may Steal 10 Coins” only applies to emperors who are signatories. So I think the explicitness there isn’t actually needed. And I feel its better to be consistent in regards to both active and passive actions.