Thursday, May 20, 2010

Laws

This is more of a question than anything else.
Rule 2.13.1 defines a law as

A Law is a Dynastic Rule proposed to be added to the Ruleset by the Blognomicker in question.

Yet from the context I cannot figure out who the Blognomicker in question is. Am I missing something or is the rule missing something.

Im just trying to make sense of what hooks there are and what has been defined etc.

Comments

Klisz:

20-05-2010 02:55:01 UTC

The Blognomicker in question is the Blognomicker who makes the proposal.

lilomar:

20-05-2010 02:58:22 UTC

I read it as a Blognomicker who is a member of Congress, but it is poorly worded.

Galdyn:

20-05-2010 05:26:15 UTC

Darth if that is the case than any and all proposals are laws. Which is okay I just want a definitive version of the meaning.

Klisz:

20-05-2010 15:48:30 UTC

Galdyn: Yeah, I think that’s what it’s supposed to mean; “by the Blognomicker in question” ought to be removed, though.

h2g2guy:

20-05-2010 22:42:59 UTC

I agree with lilomar on this one:  I think the author of the proposal intended it to refer to a member of Congress, as I doubt he just wanted to change the word ‘proposal’.

I personally think a CfJ is in order for this issue: we seem to have at least 3 Blognomickers ‘actively disagreeing.’  What do you guys think?

Klisz:

20-05-2010 23:13:28 UTC

h2g2guy: It doesn’t matter which interpretation is correct (also, proposals that merely change the gamestate, or the core rules, are not laws).