Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Proposal: Initial Standing Orders

Reaches quorum 8-3 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 24 Jan 2013 14:53:06 UTC

Amend rule 1.2 by appending “This rule may not be overridden by Dynastic Rules.”

Enact a new Dynastic Rule entitled ‘Standing Orders’ reading as follows:

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

  • Enact, repeal, or amend any Core Rule or any part of the Glossary.
  • Alter any game state contrary to the Glossary or to any Core Rule that cannot be overridden by Dynastic Rules, notwithstanding that Proposal enactment may normally make arbitrary changes to the game state.
  • Change the identity of the Speaker.
  • Appoint or remove an Admin.

Admins may be appointed by CFJ.

The Speaker should, upon request, make himself available to any Honourable Members who wish to make use of an Admin to take actions requiring specific timing or other unusual action on the part of an Admin.

Enact a new rule entitled ‘“Unanimous” Consent’:

If the EVCs of a Quorum of the Honourable Members who have valid Votes on a given Proposal contain the ARROW http://blognomic.com/images/vote/arrow.gif icon, then that proposal may be resolved by any Admin notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal.

Comments

scshunt:

23-01-2013 22:57:48 UTC

for  arrow

Murphy:

23-01-2013 23:00:54 UTC

against

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”.

Josh: Observer he/they

23-01-2013 23:11:37 UTC

against 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.

Josh: Observer he/they

23-01-2013 23:14:30 UTC

Murphy, you appear to be idle?

Cpt_Koen:

23-01-2013 23:25:46 UTC

“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?

Clucky: he/him

23-01-2013 23:38:53 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

23-01-2013 23:39:04 UTC

oh wait I’m still idle

Clucky: he/him

23-01-2013 23:40:28 UTC

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

Clucky: he/him

24-01-2013 00:05:17 UTC

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

scshunt:

24-01-2013 01:35:34 UTC

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.

Skju:

24-01-2013 01:51:12 UTC

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?

scshunt:

24-01-2013 02:02:50 UTC

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.

nqeron:

24-01-2013 04:10:27 UTC

against 
“Appoint or remove an Admin.”

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

Murphy:

24-01-2013 04:50:57 UTC

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).

scshunt:

24-01-2013 06:20:48 UTC

nqeron: “Admins may be appointed by CFJ.”

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2013 07:54:51 UTC

@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.

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2013 09:22:18 UTC

for 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.

RaichuKFM: she/her

24-01-2013 12:31:53 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

24-01-2013 13:43:50 UTC

for Though I agree with Murphy.

Skju:

24-01-2013 14:46:10 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

24-01-2013 18:48:01 UTC

for

Klisz:

24-01-2013 19:10:13 UTC

for

nqeron:

24-01-2013 19:33:02 UTC

Fine for