Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Proposal: II-Space

2-6. Timed out.—Chronos

Adminned at 13 Jul 2006 12:20:41 UTC

[ Here’s an alternative solution to the italics problem (which has just struck again, knocking damaging holes into the new ‘Time Crystals’ rule). ]

In the Glossary, replace element 3.1 (“Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset…”), if it exists, with:-

If a paragraph contains more italicised words than unitalicised words, then it is not considered part of the ruleset. Such paragraphs may be used to clarify a rule with examples, notes or flavor text.

posted by Kevan at 11 Jul 2006 11:24:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

11-07-2006 11:59:21 UTC

against

Bucky:

11-07-2006 12:46:46 UTC

against  against

Kevan: he/him

11-07-2006 16:09:54 UTC

Any feedback on this? Why is this, which is basically just “italic text must be in a paragraph by itself”, any worse than “individual italic words in the middle of paragraphs, those ones that people don’t always notice until after enactment, become invisible”?

Hix:

11-07-2006 17:26:21 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

11-07-2006 17:31:05 UTC

imperial

Angry Grasshopper:

11-07-2006 18:17:39 UTC

for

TAE:

11-07-2006 18:46:29 UTC

against
Because I don’t like the idea of having to count the words in paragraphs.  I don’t think that we have an “italics problem”.  I at least saw the rogue italics in in “Time Crystals” and voted on it anyways, figuring that either a follow up proposal would fix it or it would die and be re-proposed.

Kevan: he/him

12-07-2006 01:39:38 UTC

The “more than half” is really just to close the loopholes that “contains entirely italics” would have created (that a scammer could just subtly de-italicise one word, or an innocent could accidentally do so, to make the entire paragraph unexpectedly ruleset-legal) - it’d be obvious at a glance in most cases, and any weird, rare borderline ones would stand out, which I think is the important thing.

Purplebeard:

12-07-2006 20:30:45 UTC

against