Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Proposal: Invisible Departed Legislators Elude Rules

Timed out and failed, 2 votes to 3. Josh

Adminned at 27 Aug 2021 16:29:36 UTC

In the core rule “Idle Legislators”, change

Idle Legislators are not counted as Legislators.


Idle Legislators are not counted as Legislators. The combined term “Idle Legislator” can be used to refer to Legislators who are Idle even in rules that do not treat them as Legislators.

Add the following entry to the Mandate List:

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

As far as most of the Ruleset is concerned “Idle Legislators” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing, because anyone Idle is not a Legislator. Nevertheless, some historical and current rules actually use the term which causes problems, for example requiring an idle mentor to be impossible.

This proposal makes effective the conventions we’ve been incorrectly following.


Josh: he/they

25-08-2021 18:27:14 UTC

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


25-08-2021 18:30:05 UTC

This proposal was posted before that mandate existed.

Josh: he/they

25-08-2021 18:34:21 UTC

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.


25-08-2021 18:37:56 UTC


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.

Clucky: he/him

25-08-2021 23:20:05 UTC

“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.


26-08-2021 00:44:22 UTC

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


27-08-2021 02:37:57 UTC

Explicit Author for

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

27-08-2021 03:12:39 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

27-08-2021 12:40:41 UTC



27-08-2021 13:35:24 UTC


Josh: he/they

27-08-2021 14:36:31 UTC

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.


27-08-2021 15:21:38 UTC