Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Proposal: Legalizing what we do anyway

At 2-8, cannot pass without a changed vote, and fails. —Brendan

Adminned at 07 Oct 2010 12:30:16 UTC

To rule 1.5 append

If one part of an enacted proposal relies on the gamestate existing in a certain state to have effect, and the gamestate does not exist as required by that part of the proposal, then that part of the proposal has no effect, but the rest of the proposal takes effects as it normally would.

A couple times per dynasty, we have a situation where a proposal references a non-existent rule because of a typo or something (eg. “Repeal rule ‘This is a rule’” instead of “‘This is a rules’”). Unless it’s a conditional, it technically invalidates the proposal, but we tend to ignore that anyway.

Comments

Darknight: HE/HIM

10-06-2010 01:39:15 UTC

imperial

Thane Q:

10-06-2010 02:02:22 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

10-06-2010 02:23:03 UTC

imperial I don’t think it technically invalidates the proposal.

lilomar:

10-06-2010 05:30:07 UTC

against
I don’t see what problem you are trying to solve here, and the text seems both confusing and non-specific.

Josh: HE/HIM

10-06-2010 06:16:52 UTC

against Because that’s not what we do at the moment; at the moment we treat it as a typo and pass it according to the spirit.

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-06-2010 08:23:41 UTC

against I can’t see how a typo in one clause invalidates an entire proposal under the current ruleset, and your proposed wording would kill off even the simplest “if the rule enacted by an earlier, still-pending proposal exists, amend that rule” fix.

Kevan: HE/HIM

10-06-2010 09:33:36 UTC

Oh, not quite that, as it says “enacted proposal”. But I still don’t see that there’s a problem to fix, here.

Ienpw III:

10-06-2010 10:34:45 UTC

Josh: The rules don’t let us fix typos in proposals.

Purplebeard:

10-06-2010 11:51:02 UTC

for

Brendan: HE/HIM

10-06-2010 15:20:22 UTC

imperial

Blacky:

10-07-2010 11:18:18 UTC

imperial