Friday, April 30, 2010

Proposal: No more anonymous rules

Times out 8-5. -Ornithopter

Adminned at 02 May 2010 11:02:46 UTC

Add the following sentence to the end of rule 1.5 “Enactment”:

Immediately after enacting a proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the enacting admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.

Anonymous rules are all-to-easy to create by mistake. Wording this is actually quite hard, due to often putting special markers in rule titles (anyone remember groundhog rules?) The idea of the rule was taken from Agora, where the Rulekeepor (equivalent of the enacting admin) can retitle rules with no title as they’re created; “immediately after” makes it easier to ensure that rules cannot be retitled in scammy ways, by insisting that they mean the same thing before and after.

Comments

SeerPenguin:

30-04-2010 20:15:27 UTC

for

Put:

30-04-2010 20:16:49 UTC

for

Hix:

30-04-2010 20:55:13 UTC

Is this issue worth cluttering the Core Rules over?

Keba:

30-04-2010 22:26:03 UTC

Hm, I am note sure how to vote here.

ais has given some reasons for this Proposal, but currently Rules need to have some quality. With this change, we _could_ loose some quality in exchange of more stability.

I will vote tomorrow, I assume.

redtara: they/them

30-04-2010 22:45:04 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

01-05-2010 02:07:51 UTC

against
too many words for a non-problem

dbdougla:

01-05-2010 02:13:38 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

01-05-2010 05:26:56 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

01-05-2010 08:53:38 UTC

against Per Hix and Spike. I can’t remember this happening more than a couple of times in the past seven years.

lordcooper:

01-05-2010 09:59:16 UTC

imperial

redtara: they/them

01-05-2010 14:29:13 UTC

against CoV

ais523:

01-05-2010 18:44:16 UTC

@Kevan: I used to do it a lot, and several proposals have failed over the last several years due to creating anonymous rules.

Keba:

02-05-2010 00:30:00 UTC

against

digibomber:

02-05-2010 12:04:42 UTC

against

Kevan: City he/him

02-05-2010 12:54:20 UTC

[ais] Maybe I missed those, but how can a proposal fail because its rule wouldn’t have a title? Do you mean people just voted it down?

Klisz:

02-05-2010 15:37:58 UTC

for  @Kevan: Yes, that’s what he means. People voted against them just because they created anonymous rules. How that makes them bad, I don’t know.

Ornithopter:

02-05-2010 17:08:03 UTC

for