Saturday, May 08, 2010

Proposal: Let’s get it started, ha!

Enacted 18-2. Ien.

Adminned at 09 May 2010 14:20:01 UTC

Part 1 (with a sly wink to Darth Cliche):
Add a dynastic rule entitled “A harmless drudge”, as follows:

The term “Hook” means a word or phrase in a proposal, the Ruleset or Gamestate, the meaning of which in the context of the current Dynasty is not obvious or apparent, such that one would ordinarily expect the Ruleset or Gamestate to supply a definition or explanation of that word or phrase.  Subject to the Hook Limitations, a particular word or phrase constitutes a Hook if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to it:
(1) The word or phrase is expressly designated as a Hook in the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate (and the use of {curly brackets} around a given word or phrase shall be deemed to constitute a means of such express designation);
(2) The Victorious Blocnomicer, in a blog post or a comment the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate, expressly designates that word or phrase as a Hook; or
(3) A majority of the EVCs to the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate contain text that expressly designates that word or phrase as a Hook.
A word or phrase that is a Hook ceases to be a Hook once the Ruleset supplies a definition or explanation thereof that does not require one or more other Hooks to be defined or explained in the Ruleset or Gamestate.  Thus, if the Ruleset contains the sentence “Socrates is mortal” (with the words “Socrates” and “Mortal” each being hooks), and a subsequent sentence is introduced into the Ruleset stating that “Any Blognomicer with exactly two pending Proposals is Socrates”, then “Socrates” ceases to be a Hook because its meaning can then be interpreted without reference to any other undefined or unexplained Hook.
A given Proposal may, subject to the Hook Limitations, contain any number of Hooks.  If there is any uncertainty regarding whether a given word or phrase constitutes a Hook, or part of a Hook, then the decision of the Victorious Blognomicer, or in the absence of his decision, the decision of the {General Secretary of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association} shall be final (such that, for example, if a Proposal uses the phrase “unladen swallow”, the foregoing process may determine whether “unladen” and “swallow” are each separately Hooks, or if the unitary phrase “unladen swallow” is a hook).

When a Proposal is Resolved such that one or more Hooks is added to the Ruleset, they may be so identified with {curly brackets} (even if the curly brackets were not part of the Proposal that introduced them), and if at any time a given word or phrase ceases to be a Hook, then any Admin may remove the curly brackets that so identifies it as a Hook.  The phrase “{curly brackets}” in the Ruleset with curly brackets around it is not a Hook, notwithstanding anything contrary in the Ruleset.


The Hook Limitations are as follows:
(1) Subject to the other Hook Limitations, after May 16, 2010 23:59:59 UTC, no Proposal may be made that Proposes the introduction of one or more Hooks to the Rulestate unless that Proposal would supply a sufficient definition or explanation so as to cause at least one Hook then in the Ruleset to cease to be a Hook.

Part 2:
If proposal: “The first Definable Concept” passes, then the words “Cheese”, “Awesome”, “Chocolate Cake” and “Delicious” are all Hooks.

Part 3: If proposal “Another definable concept” passes, then the words “Match”, “Judge”, “Arbiter, and “Referee” are all Hooks.

 

Comments

Klisz:

05-08-2010 20:03:54 UTC

for  Though I’m somewhat afraid that the sly wink to me isn’t flavor text. It could become relevant given the nature of this dynasty.

spikebrennan:

05-08-2010 20:07:00 UTC

the sly wink wouldn’t become part of the Ruleset even if the proposal passes, so you should be off the hook.

Klisz:

05-08-2010 20:07:56 UTC

Ow.

Josh:

05-08-2010 20:53:52 UTC

for

digibomber:

05-08-2010 20:55:29 UTC

against This is going to create lots of hooks for scams.

Klisz:

05-08-2010 20:56:00 UTC

STOP THAT

Ienpw III:

05-08-2010 21:02:11 UTC

for

Anonyman:

05-08-2010 21:45:59 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

05-08-2010 21:52:37 UTC

against

Bucky:

05-08-2010 22:55:53 UTC

for .  If this passes, I’ll try to hook this up with a proper use.

Galdyn:

05-09-2010 00:31:33 UTC

for

Klisz:

05-09-2010 01:18:38 UTC

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

dbdougla:

05-09-2010 02:42:03 UTC

for I suddenly have an urge to dial 1-800-ABCDEFG

Darknight:

05-09-2010 03:02:51 UTC

imperial I’m not totally hooked on this but eh.

Klisz:

05-09-2010 03:50:34 UTC

*twitch*

Put:

05-09-2010 04:58:23 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

05-09-2010 05:04:06 UTC

imperial Some confusing parts, not sure if all of the definitions of “Hook” in this rule are binding but I like it.

Ienpw III:

05-09-2010 05:58:47 UTC

All those not voting FOR: Why not try it out? We can always give it the hook if need be.

keecz:

05-09-2010 08:29:32 UTC

for

Kevan:

05-09-2010 09:28:49 UTC

for

Anonyman:

05-09-2010 12:02:00 UTC

CoV for

Keba:

05-09-2010 12:23:55 UTC

for I thought I have already voted here…

Jumblin McGrumblin:

05-09-2010 15:10:28 UTC

for

SeerPenguin:

05-09-2010 16:26:56 UTC

for

Tiberias:

05-09-2010 17:49:04 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

05-09-2010 18:58:48 UTC

for