Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Proposal: Making the rules of Enactment explicit

Can’t reach quorum with 10 votes against. Failed by Kevan. -2 points to nobody, as Arthexis is idle.

Adminned at 17 Oct 2009 03:12:43 UTC

In core rule “1.5 Enactment” change the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if either of the following is true” so that instead it reads:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (by setting its status to Enacted) if either of the following is true

In the same rule, before the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true” insert another sentence that reads:

Then, immediately after the proposal is enacted, that Admin shall update the Ruleset and/or Gamestate in the manner specified by that Proposal. That Admin cannot perform any other action until those updates are complete.

In the same rule, change the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true” so that it reads:

The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin (by either setting its status to Failed or Vetoed, depending on the reason for failure), if any of the following are true

 

I pondered rewriting all the rule at once, but I decided on this format to make each change clearer.

Comments

ais523:

10-14-2009 16:09:27 UTC

for Assuming that “shall” implies “can”; I think it does in BlogNomic. (If not, well, we’ve always got CFJs to fix the problem.)

Klisz:

10-14-2009 16:49:53 UTC

for

Oranjer:

10-14-2009 16:50:03 UTC

for, Although I wonder about the utility of putting the Admin’s actions in parantheses.

arthexis:

10-14-2009 17:38:20 UTC

No rule says that text in parenthesis are not part of the rules.

Oranjer:

10-14-2009 17:44:33 UTC

I know, but it seems awkward to me. No problem, though.

Qwazukee:

10-14-2009 17:50:27 UTC

against The Ruleset/Gamestate should automatically be updated to reflect enactment as soon as it happens. The written rules and observed Gamestate may take a little longer to update, but it makes most sense to have the actual Ruleset and Gamestate updated as soon as something passes.

ais523:

10-14-2009 17:53:08 UTC

against per Qwaz; good point. What we need is for proposals to be enacted the same way as Bucky’s proposal, but the ruleset changes happen instantly, then the admin has to update the online copies of the rules and gamestate accordingly.

ais523:

10-14-2009 17:53:34 UTC

Actually, arrow. (This is a CoV only if the amendment proposal passes.)

Bucky:

10-14-2009 19:21:59 UTC

against

Klisz:

10-14-2009 19:30:13 UTC

arrow

arthexis:

10-14-2009 19:44:06 UTC

@qwaz: Your point would be valid is such differences where marked in the ruleset. As the ruleset stands right now, there is no difference between what’s written in the ruleset and what should be.

arthexis:

10-14-2009 19:53:50 UTC

Whatever, this is merely political voting to make sure Bucky wins instead of me. Otherwise, it makes no sense that players would try to delay a critical core ruleset fix like this one.

spikebrennan:

10-14-2009 20:13:56 UTC

against
“shall” means “must”.  It’s already in the Glossary.

Qwazukee:

10-14-2009 20:30:23 UTC

@arth: Of course there is a difference, otherwise I could just go alter everything in the Ruleset right now and it would immediately become the actual Rules.

ais523:

10-14-2009 21:15:45 UTC

@spikebrennan: does saying that someone must do something, mean that they can?

Darknight:

10-14-2009 21:39:44 UTC

against

Wakukee:

10-14-2009 22:06:16 UTC

imperial

spikebrennan:

10-14-2009 22:28:54 UTC

“@spikebrennan: does saying that someone must do something, mean that they can?”

I think that the answer is yes, although a rule that states “A Player is permitted to take any Action that a Rule or the Gamestate expressly requires that Player to take” would resolve any doubt.

Excalabur:

10-15-2009 01:33:14 UTC

Gamestate should change upon marking of the post.  End of Story.  The recording thereof may be delayed, but should definitely happen /after/ the post is closed for voting.

You guys managed to have an entire CfJ while I was asleep, which is pretty impressive; what makes it even moreso is that is was about an action that I took. 

And no, arthexis, i’m not voting against this to prevent you from winning, I’m voting against this because it’s a bad proposal against

arthexis:

10-15-2009 04:32:05 UTC

@excalibur: except of course that modifying both at once is a physical impossibility, and that the rule as written now allows me to enact rules in what ever order I wish to.

Excalabur:

10-15-2009 05:10:33 UTC

Please spell my name correctly, arth.

No: the gamestate changes when the proposal is enacted.  The Ruleset as-recorded is then changed to match gamestate.  Easy-peasey.

Wooble:

10-15-2009 18:25:46 UTC

against

Kevan:

10-15-2009 18:27:29 UTC

against

Josh:

10-16-2009 15:16:51 UTC

against