BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

This proposal is misfit as “Idler” does not appear in the ruleset or in this proposal.

This proposal was posted before that mandate existed.

That doesn’t appear to matter.

Yes, you have

If, using the definition of “Misfit” at the time a proposal was posted (as opposed to the current definition), a proposal is a Misfit, then the Wielder of Vetoes is strongly encouraged to veto it

But you also have

A proposal is a Misfit if it does not have all of the properties on the following list, known as the Mandate List:

So it appears that a proposal is Misfit based on the Mandate List at all times during its existence, not just when it was posted.

Yes.

The fact that this proposal was posted before the relevant mandate existed means the Wielder of Vetoes is not encouraged to veto it.

However, “Legislators are encouraged to draw attention to Misfit proposals that have not been vetoed yet, and to avoid voting FOR on them” still applies.

“Its stated effects refer by name to no particular Legislator or Idle Legislator.”

this to me it needs to refer by name to something, but that something is no particular Legislator or Idle Legistlaor.

For what it’s worth, I agree with Clucky on this one. Also with Bucky.

Explicit Author

The ruleset does say that Legislators are encouraged to avoid voting FOR on this.

That doesn’t make any of the votes above illegal but I think we should frown on blowing through that kind of restriction without good reason.