Thursday, July 20, 2006

Proposal: Let try this, once more

Self-killed, failed by Angry Grasshopper.

Adminned at 21 Jul 2006 18:46:10 UTC

Rewrite rule 1.1 to:

This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Players must obey the most recent version of this document.

Section One consists of the “Core Rules” of Blognomic, covering basic Traveller and proposal mechanics; Section Two contains the rules of the current dynasty, and may be reffered to as the “Dynastic Rules”; and Section Three contains the glossary, which exists solely to clarify the remainder of the ruleset.

The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.

If two parts of the Rulesset contradict each other, precedence shall be construed in the following order:

1. The Glossary has precedence over any Core or Dynastic Rule;

2. A Core Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, unless that Dynastic Rule explicitly says it can’t be overruled by a Core Rule;

3. If both contradicting parts are Dynastic, or if both of them are Core Rules, the part with more limited scope applies. (e.g. if the rules “Players can Fight each other” and “Players cannot Fight each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, players cannot fight each other.)

4. If two parts with the same scope contradict each other, the negative rule applies. (e.g. with “Players can Fight each other on Tuesdays” and “Player cannot fight each other on Tuesdays”, Players cannont fight each other on Tuesdays.)

Admins may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset at any time.

No Dynastic Rule may contain a provision that bars itself from being altered and/or repealed. If at any moment a Dynastic Rule exists or is altered in a manner that renders it to contain such a provision, the entirety of that Rule shall be considered void and with no effects on the Gamestate. A rule A is considered to fall under this paragraph’s provisions if it protects another rule B from being altered and/or repealed and that rule B prevents rule A from being altered. Daisy-chains of protection also fall under this paragraph’s provisions. The provisions on this paragraph supersede any text in a Dynastic Rule.

Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever a Player is referred to.

This was taken directly from our late Ruleset Draft. I’ve only changed some of the terminology to comply with the current one.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

20-07-2006 14:07:28 UTC

against

It’d be good to clarify precedence, but the sequence above seems completely at odds with how it should work in practice; would we really want the core rule of “Any Player may cast eir Vote” to take precedence over “Players cannot vote on Tuesdays”?

And I still say we can lose that entire “provision that bars itself from being altered” thing, it’s a paranoid relic that’s never going to be watertight, and it’s just getting in the way of potentially useful mechanics.

Bucky:

20-07-2006 15:57:00 UTC

against
This makes no provision for rules with broad scope that state that they take precidence over rules with narrower scope, or the Glossary (because this proposed rule would have precidence over such a rule)

Hix:

20-07-2006 21:25:55 UTC

against  against  against

Thelonious:

21-07-2006 11:36:22 UTC

imperial

TAE:

21-07-2006 13:44:57 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

21-07-2006 17:52:57 UTC

against S-K.