Monday, June 18, 2012

Proposal: Ruleset populism

Quorums 10-7 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 19 Jun 2012 22:44:41 UTC

In the rule “Ruleset and Gamestate”, replace

Admins may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset at any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”. Time Buddhas may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in their own Pending Proposals at any time

(or the corresponding paragraph with “Stewards” instead of “Admins”, if it exists)

with:

Time Buddhas may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”.

 

No harm in it.

Comments

scshunt:

18-06-2012 06:17:12 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

18-06-2012 06:36:14 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

18-06-2012 07:05:39 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

18-06-2012 09:23:18 UTC

for

Rodney:

18-06-2012 12:19:04 UTC

for

Bucky:

18-06-2012 13:47:05 UTC

against

Typo correction is one of the few things in the core rules that actually scares me.  The last thing we need is some newbie trying to ‘correct’ some typoed text to a dictatorship.

Klisz:

18-06-2012 15:10:51 UTC

against per Bucky.

Clucky: he/him

18-06-2012 15:34:02 UTC

against per Bucky. Why let non-admins do this and not pass proposals? I really don’t see the benefit in letting non-admins do this, just opens the door for a lot of trouble.

moonroof:

18-06-2012 17:40:54 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

18-06-2012 18:03:12 UTC

We seem to be entering a new age of typos at the moment (is this an artefact of people playing from mobile devices?), and how we handle them is definitely too hazy - if a rule says that a player can take an action to “recieve 1 point”, is that a null action until someone fixes the typo? If it is, then admins have a small but unreasonable advantage here.

If we’re scared of silly newbie scams, we can define “typo” much more strictly in the appendix and reference that definition in Rule 1.1.

Clucky: he/him

18-06-2012 18:06:31 UTC

I guess I’d argue that its not a null action. Its a typo in the ruleset, fixing the typo doesn’t change the nullness of the action, it just makes the ruleset cleaner.

omd:

18-06-2012 19:14:04 UTC

The dividing line I’ve always used (which Agora explicitly mentions in its ruleset) is an ambiguity in meaning - whether there is any reasonable way to interpret the text taken literally, at a relatively low level.  “Recieve” creates no ambiguity; “repel” is borderline, but probably ambiguous enough to fail.  This is actually fairly different from the “obvious spelling mistake” test: “repel” is clearly a mistake, reading at a high level, and I believe the author could have legally corrected it before it got enacted… in other ways, it’s a narrower test, since text that looks like a spelling mistake but actually isn’t (considering its actual history) couldn’t be corrected.

Cpt_Koen:

18-06-2012 21:18:36 UTC

against per Bucky. I’m actually against free typo correction; we have proposals for that.

Spice:

19-06-2012 00:10:39 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

19-06-2012 14:27:53 UTC

against

BobTHJ:

19-06-2012 21:47:02 UTC

for

omd:

19-06-2012 22:00:05 UTC

Hi, BobTHJ.  You need to become unidle before you can vote.

Josh: Observer he/they

19-06-2012 22:21:35 UTC

I don’t think that’s true any more omd. His vote will become valid when he unidles, I think.

Kevan: he/him

19-06-2012 22:38:49 UTC

Well, he’s only got seven hours to unidle if he wants his vote to actually count.

Soviet Brendon:

19-06-2012 23:18:22 UTC

Time to find me some “typos”...

for

BobTHJ:

20-06-2012 00:13:00 UTC

I requested to be unidled in a different thread, but I repeat my request here: please unidle me!

redtara: they/them

20-06-2012 01:44:53 UTC

against Per others.

Bob: you’re unidled now.

BobTHJ:

20-06-2012 02:13:19 UTC

ty :)

Henri:

20-06-2012 02:41:43 UTC

against per Bucky. We can’t trust people to correct a “small mistake”. They could “correct” the whole proposal for all we know! So, no.

Klisz:

20-06-2012 04:16:39 UTC

for CoV per Kevan.