Thursday, December 12, 2019

Proposal: Prepesel: ne scems

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Dec 2019 13:38:15 UTC

If the rule “Blegnemic” exists, make the text in the rule of the same as the text proposed in the proposal “Blegnemic”. Then add to the start of that rule “This rule is not considered to contain any typographical or spelling errors.”

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

12-12-2019 20:06:24 UTC

Hereby stating that all of the “e”-ism in that rule is intentional and not errors.

Also, I made it like that so that I could refer to stuff like Proposals and Calls of Judgement without actually using that already-used term.

Cuddlebeam:

12-12-2019 20:09:44 UTC

Outright stating that there are no errors could be dangerous in itself if there actually are any. Maybe we could make it more obvious that the e-ism is deliberate? I don’t know.

TyGuy6:

12-12-2019 21:21:26 UTC

Kevan doesn’t trust you that far, but I do. That said, he already pointed out that Scam was written in place of Scem at one point, so the statement that it contains no errors would appear to be false.

I believe the “correcting mispellings” core rule could be suppressed to good effect. And maybe change “Victory” to “Vectory”?

card:

12-12-2019 21:40:33 UTC

[TyGuy6] the convention Cuddlebeam has been using was a, e, o -> e leaving i’s in tact, except for in the word “Theng”. i don’t actually know if there was a reason for choosing those aside from “they sounded good”
also i’m not sure what you mean by the “Victory” to “Vectory” since neither of those terms appear in Cuddlebeam’s proposal.

TyGuy6:

12-12-2019 22:19:30 UTC

Heh, oops. Ok, Winner to Wenner. Or possibly, Weiner. Whiner?

Cuddlebeam:

12-12-2019 22:46:32 UTC

We could just rename everything in the Proposal to better puns admittedly.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-13-2019 17:55:47 UTC

for If it exists and a scam didn’t occur between it enacting and this enacting, then sure, we should add this sentence to it.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-13-2019 17:56:49 UTC

...and if nobody corrects its title to “BlogNomic” in that time, I guess.

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-13-2019 19:09:21 UTC

against Ah, wait, this is the thing where the enacting admin can make a later proposal called “Blegnemic” and pick the text from that one instead.

card:

12-13-2019 20:59:33 UTC

sigh i knew i should have put the url in there. anyways i don’t believe that the names of rules falls under the purview of the corrections rule 1.2 because point #3 of 4.3.5 says that the names of rules are specifically not rules text.
against

Kevan: HE/HIM

12-13-2019 23:36:43 UTC

Very good point.

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

12-14-2019 21:46:00 UTC

“anyways i don’t believe that the names of rules falls under the purview of the corrections rule 1.2 because point #3 of 4.3.5 says that the names of rules are specifically not rules text.”

(I assume we’re talking about rule 1.1, “Ruleset and Gamestate”; there’s nothing on corrections in rule 1.2, “People”.)

The corrections clause refers to the Ruleset, and not specifically to rule text. Aren’t rule titles part of the Ruleset? Even though their text is not something that must be obeyed, they are functionally important because they facilitate the use and alteration of the Ruleset.

Besides, the same rule stipulates that “f the Ruleset does not properly reflect all legal changes that have been made to it, any Person may update it to do so”. If rule titles are not part of the Ruleset, this calls into question the right to change a rule’s title in response to a successful proposal’s provision to that effect.

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

12-14-2019 21:47:38 UTC

(Ugh. By “Even though their text is not something that must be obeyed”, I was referring to the text of rule titles.)

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

12-14-2019 21:49:30 UTC

(Double ugh. The convention on quoting within sentences has induced me to place an “i” within square brackets. Apparently this has resulted in the entire page being italicised after that point. So I’m fixing it.)