Thursday, January 01, 2009

Proposal: [MIC] Cleaning up a mistake and making things faster

Okay, guys, obvious typos may be corrected by any admin once the rule reaches the ruleset.  But this is still illegal.  There is NOTHING that says Yoda’s comment doesn’t count.—Rodlen

Adminned at 01 Jan 2009 15:00:39 UTC

Create a sub-rule of rule 3.2 Proper References, sub-rule of rule 3 Needless Bureaucracy, Rule of the MIC ruleset with the name “Reference Exceptions” with the text:

WHEREAS at times a rule must be referenced before it has been added to the ruleset;
WHEREAS in such times, a proposal should not be needlessly failed;
THEREFOR if a proposal refers to a rule that was not added to the ruleset until prior to the proposal was posted, it need not refer to the rule number, or parent rules of the rule to which it refers, as specified in rule 3.2 Proper References, sub-rule of rule 3 Needless Bureaucracy, Rule of the MIC ruleset.

Create a new rule of the MIC ruleset named “The Will of the People” with the text:

WHEREAS at times the people will be unified in their decisisions;
WHEREAS the will of the people is represented by the Chairman and his Viziers;
THEREFOR if a proposal has reached a quorum of votes and the Chairman and at least one of his Vizier’s has voted on the proposal, and cast the same vote, that proposal may be immediately enacted or failed, regardless of it’s position in the queue.
THEREFOR if a proposal has been voted on by the Chairman and BOTH of his Vizier’s, and all three have voted the same, that proposal may be immediately enacted, regardless of it’s position in the queue.

EDIT: Yoda’s comment doesn’t count as a real comment, so this edit is legal :D.

Comments

Yoda:

01-01-2009 08:07:39 UTC

In the first therefore of part 2, “immediately enacted” should be “immediately enacted or failed”.

Amnistar: he/him

01-01-2009 08:11:26 UTC

Thanks yoda, fixed it for you :D.

SingularByte: he/him

01-01-2009 09:16:10 UTC

for

Escher:

01-01-2009 16:37:11 UTC

against I’m going to be pedantic again (can’t help it, former teacher).  The phrase “THEREFOR if a proposal refers to a rule that was not added to the ruleset until prior to the proposal was posted, ” doesn’t parse.  I think what you were going for is “THEREFORE if a proposal refers to a rule that was not added to the ruleset at the time the proposal was posted, “

And even though I agree with poth parts of this proposal, I can’t vote for it as phrased.

arthexis: he/him

01-01-2009 17:35:21 UTC

for

Klisz:

01-01-2009 19:20:36 UTC

What do you mean it “doesn’t count as a real comment”? Could you quote the rule which says that?

Amnistar: he/him

01-01-2009 21:36:02 UTC

against S.K. anyway, because of escher’s comment so the point is moot darth.