Friday, February 15, 2013

Proposal: Order in the court

Vetoed. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:25:46 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Elections”:

  As a weekly action, an Honourable member (the Poster) may post a Proposal beginning with the subject “Election:”, as long as no such proposal is currently pending.  In addition, the subject must include the name of an Honorable Member belonging to the same party as the Poster (the Target).  Resolution of such a proposal is as normal, except it can NOT be vetoed.  If such a proposal is enacted, then the the identity of the Speaker shall change to that of the Target.  At no time may there be more than one Speaker.

 

entertaining the idea of changing Speakers

posted by nqeron at 15 Feb 2013 16:31:44 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

15-02-2013 16:59:43 UTC

imperial

Larrytheturtle:

15-02-2013 17:07:03 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2013 17:28:39 UTC

for

Klisz:

15-02-2013 20:33:10 UTC

for

Henri:

15-02-2013 21:15:17 UTC

for

Skju:

15-02-2013 22:26:35 UTC

for A new Dynasty wouldn’t begin, right?

Josh: Observer he/they

15-02-2013 22:32:29 UTC

No, it would be the same dynasty just with a different Speaker.

Purplebeard:

16-02-2013 08:34:46 UTC

against Rule 2.1 says we can’t do this, and I like it that way.

Josh: Observer he/they

16-02-2013 09:30:43 UTC

Huh, I think that makes this proposal illegal.

I’m going to mark it such and see what happens!

scshunt:

16-02-2013 21:49:11 UTC

I’m not going to mark it illegal, because we don’t mark proposals illegal when they attempt to change rules that don’t exist either. However, I will veto because if there is going to be another Speaker, it should be due to a victory.

Josh: Observer he/they

17-02-2013 01:00:32 UTC

I think as a point of etiquette that it would have been preferable for you to have CfJed rather than getting into an edit war, but the end effect seems much the same so never mind.

scshunt:

17-02-2013 02:04:55 UTC

Fair enough.

scshunt:

17-02-2013 02:06:20 UTC

Actually, no, there’s no way I could have CFJed this due to the game state problem (I couldn’t write a CFJ that resolved this such that it affected game state in an unambiguous fashion, unless the game state effect was tangential). A PoO would have done, though (sad that that rule has not been used more often :( )

RaichuKFM: she/her

17-02-2013 04:46:17 UTC

against arrow Speed this out perhaps?

nqeron:

17-02-2013 05:31:02 UTC

Aw - I liked this idea