Does not require the Admin to resolve such a Proposal in accordance with the will of the Honourable Members, as normally regulated by Rule 1.4.2 (Resolution of Proposals).  Recommend changing “notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal” to “as if it were the oldest pending Proposal”.

Admining proposals out of order can lead to unanticipated effects, like corrections to a rule passing before the rule that it amends is itself enacted.

I’m also concerned that

No Proposal or Dynastic Rule can, by being enacted or otherwise:

[...]
*Change the identity of the Speaker.

makes it illegal to have a rule that permits achieving Victory.

Murphy, you appear to be idle?

“If the EVCs of a Quorum of the Honourable Members who have valid Votes on a given Proposal contain the ARROW icon, then that proposal may be resolved by any Admin notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal.”

Are you sure that the only effect of this is to remove the oldest proposal clause, and that it wouldn’t allow an admin to resolve a proposal before it has enough votes or has been open long enough?

oh wait I’m still idle

oh am I? I can just unidle myself whenever, right?

whatever, now I’m in the playerlist so Im unidle. 

Murphy: My interpretation is that it doesn’t specifically authorize enacting or failing; it only serves to lift the requirement that it be the oldest. It doesn’t operate notwithstanding other requirements, so they must be obeyed.

Josh: Resolving things out of order leading to odd effects is exactly the point, and a DoV won’t be affected by the limitation on Speaker changing since that’s a core rule, not a dynastic rule.

Cpt_Koen: By my interpretation, yes.

Would a dynastic rule that allows for victory not be considered to change the speaker simply because it does not do so directly, or for a different reason?

Also, to be clear, an arrow in an EVC here would have no effect because this is already the oldest proposal, right?

Because it doesn’t do so directly.

And an arrow in an EVC on this proposal won’t matter because it won’t be a rule until it’s enacted, past which point it doesn’t matter.

 
“Appoint or remove an Admin.”

How does this affect a member who wants to become an admin?

Josh: I tried to unidle, but too early to be effective, I guess. Fixed (or will be) by posting new request.

scshunt: I suspect rules and game custom are fuzzy enough that it would come down to the Speaker’s choice of interpretation (or a CFJ if people disagreed strongly enough).

nqeron: “Admins may be appointed by CFJ.”

@scshunt - the rule Victories and Ascension is a core rule, but a dynastic rule that says “If x does y, then x has achieved victory” arguably also “change[s] the identity of the Speaker”, and when we get ‘round to a victory condition we’re not going to want to put it in the core rules.

The Speaker-changing clause seems okay to me, but there’s plenty of time to patch it if people are worried.

[Clucky] If by playerlist you mean “Current Active Honourable Members” in the sidebar, I don’t see your name there.

Though I agree with Murphy.

Fine