Thursday, May 28, 2020

Proposal: Special tags [Special Case]

Self-killed. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 29 May 2020 14:26:29 UTC

1. Amend rule 3 (“Special Case”) as follows:

‘’‘Special Case Rules’‘’ can be Active or Inactive, and this status is notated in each Special Case Rule’s title as “[Active]” or “[Inactive]” respectively. The text of a Special Case Rule that is Inactive is flavour text.

Special Case Rules have a ‘’‘Default Status’‘’, which can be Active or Inactive. If the title of a Special Case Rule includes an asterisk (“*”), its Default Status is Inactive; otherwise, its Default Status is Active. [[#Victory and Ascension|When a new Dynasty is started]], the Ascension Address may list any number of existing Special Case Rules to be set to a status other than their respective Default Status. All other Special Case Rules are set to their respective Default Status.

Second attempt at streamlining the rule – after this – with mandatory tags this time. (Technically we can’t call them “tags”, because those refer only to Votable Matters, but that could change.)

posted by The Duke of Waltham at 28 May 2020 21:20:00 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

Clucky: he/him

29-05-2020 07:33:48 UTC

Are subrules part of a rule? I think they are. So I think this would clear out all the subrules…

What is the reason for this change? Unclear to me the problem we are trying to solve here.

against

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

29-05-2020 08:01:31 UTC

The rule as it is currently stated calls for optional tags, which in theory could be used only when a Special Case Rule is not in its default state, but which turned out to be popular. However, I think it would be confusing to keep the tags in some rules and omit them in others, so in line with the rationale of those who voted against my last proposal, I’m removing this optionality (and, in the process, improving how the rule reads).

As far as I know, a rule’s subrules are considered separately from the main rule unless explicitly mentioned, and that’s how I’ve always treated them in my proposals.

Kevan: he/him

29-05-2020 10:17:29 UTC

“A Proposal that specifically affects a rule affects all of its subrules”, and it’s hard to read the rather vague “amend rule X as follows” instruction as anything other than “replace rule X with this”.

against

Tantusar: he/they

29-05-2020 10:29:58 UTC

against per all

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

29-05-2020 10:31:22 UTC

So that was in “Keywords” rather than “Clarifications”? Bleh.

And how do you get around it? “Replace the text of the rule” is sufficient to discount the subrules? I’m sure I’ve done this before somehow.

Anyway, I’ll be back.

against