BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

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.

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.

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”?

[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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Very good point.

“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.

(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.)