BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I’d say not proposal, but Votable Matter, so as to take into account CfJ as well.
And.. “a proposal that specifically affects a subrule does not affect its parent rule or any other subrule of that rule” -> a votable matter that specifically affects a subrule does not affect its parent rule or its sibling rules, but affects subrules of the subrule. Though I haven’t met subsubrules yet :)

As subrules are also rules, the second revision isn’t needed - it’s implicit in “a proposal that specifically affects a rule affects all of its subrules.”

Are the subsubrules subrules of the rule? Then a proposal at the same time affects the subsubrule as a subrule of the subrule, and doesn’t affect the subsubrule as a subrule of the rule. %)

No, a subrule of a subrule is also a subrule, ubrule just being defined as “a rule that is nested within another rule”.

Subrule now means nothing to me. Subrule. Subrule. What a stupid word.

Sorry, I didn’t get it. Let’s say there is a proposal that suggests a word replacement throughout a subrule 2.3.4. Does it affect 2.3.4.5? On the one hand, 2.3.4.5 is a subrule of 2.3.4, so it should be affected. But on the other hand, 2.3.4.5 is a subrule of 2.3, and is “other subrule” than 2.3.4 (meaning it’s not the exact same rule), so it should not be affected.

And another question: is subrule 2.3.4 considered to be a part of the rule 2.3 in the sense that the text of the rule 2.3 includes the text of the subrule 2.3.4?

Both fair questions, and this proposal doesn’t really answer them. Suggestions for alternate wording? Perhaps just to make it so that proposals never automatically affect a rule’s subrules under any circumstances.

Hmm, actually I’d suggest that the rule contains all its subrules, otherwise there would be no point in making subrules.

Rule: Each individually numbered section of the ruleset is a rule. A rule has a name, a text, and any number (possibly zero) of subrules.
Subrule: A subrule is a type of rule that is contained in another rule.

This way if a proposal affects a rule 2.3, it affects the whole section 2.3 of the ruleset, with all the subrules 2.3.x as its parts. If a proposal affects a subrule 2.3.4, then it affects only this rule and its subrules 2.3.4.x, but not 2.3 since it is not part of the rule 2.3.4.

Do I miss something?

The problem is, if a proposal says “In the rule which contains the line ‘blah de blah’”, and blah de blah appears in 2.3.4.5, that proposal is then referring to 2.3.4.5, 2.3.4, and 2.3 all at the same time.

Oh, yes. So that’s why it’s better not to include rules this way, I see…

Then,
Rule: Each individually numbered section of the ruleset is a rule. A rule has a name, and a text.

And for subrule maybe somehow to mention the structure of its number? Say, a subrule is a type of rule, which number is the number of another rule called its parent rule followed by a dot and a positive integer. Not the best wording probably.

Then if a proposal affects a rule, it does not affect its subrules unless explicitly stated otherwise.

[Josh] To be fair, my “the rule with this text” wording was really just a clumsy dodge of the Retheme proposal’s “reword all future proposals” (I wasn’t sure if it would rename the rules or not, as rule titles aren’t rule text, but I should have just called it by number) - I doubt this exact problem has ever come up before, or will again.