Friday, June 24, 2011

Proposal: Subrules are undefined and this IS a proposal.

Quorums and fails 3-6.

Adminned at 25 Jun 2011 21:30:00 UTC

As part of the Rule “Keywords” insert between

Subject
The “subject” of a blog entry is the part of the Title of an entry which is after the first colon. If the Title does not contain a colon, then the whole Title is the subject. Any entry whose subject is “” (i.e. an empty string) is not valid.

and

Votable Matter
The word “Votable Matter”, means a Proposal, a CFJ or a DoV.

the following:

Subrule
A Subrule X of Rule Y is a Rule that is also part of Rule Y. A Subrule X uses a heading of one level higher than the corresponding Rule Y in the ruleset.

I was shocked when I realized that the Rule “Species” was a mix of Subrules and ammendments of it, which cannot be distinguished. Thus, with this definition of “Subrules” (which I was even more shocked to not find) any Rule that is part of another Rule and denoted in the Ruleset with one extra heading-level is a Subrule.

I believe this is comaptible with all (or at least most) usages of “Subrule” I encountered so far. But better check.

Sorry, I forgot the right category…. :-/

posted by mideg at 24 Jun 2011 11:20:59 UTC Comments (18)

Comments

mideg:

24-06-2011 11:23:01 UTC

Now, this IS a proposal!

Winner:

24-06-2011 12:07:06 UTC

for Trivial

Yoda:

24-06-2011 15:07:40 UTC

for I don’t see anything wrong with this definition, and it does clear up some things.

Bucky:

24-06-2011 16:53:59 UTC

for

Galtori:

24-06-2011 16:54:03 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

24-06-2011 17:48:17 UTC

against I don’t think we should see subrules as ‘part’ of their parents, if only because it will mess with “Replace rule X with…” proposals.

mideg:

24-06-2011 17:54:07 UTC

@Pb: If we consider Subrules as not being part of their parent right now, then several zombies do not exist, namely those listed in Subrules of “Species”.

We can do that, of course, but we would have to revert about two months of gameplay or something.

Yoda:

24-06-2011 20:25:22 UTC

against cov per PB

In the absence of a ruleset definition, we use the english usage.

Yoda:

24-06-2011 20:26:00 UTC

In other words, if it looks like a subrule, then by the normal english usage, it is a subrule.

mideg:

24-06-2011 20:51:50 UTC

It depends on the look? On the representation of the rule? Does not sound nomic to me…. :-/

SingularByte: he/him

24-06-2011 22:08:23 UTC

against

aguydude:

24-06-2011 22:45:41 UTC

against

Yoda:

25-06-2011 00:02:54 UTC

mideg: Ok, I see where you’re coming with the Species rule.  If you’re that worried about it, just make a proposal to fix it and move on.

Subrules are not considered part of the parent rule, as that would mean that all those “Replace the text of the rule “The Dead”...” proposals would have completely wiped out all of the subrules as well.

mideg:

25-06-2011 06:25:25 UTC

Hm, if subrules are not part of the parent and a subrule is everything that looks like the english definition of the word subrule, then we do not have any Zombie. Because all Zombie Definitions look like subrules of the Rule “Species” (and most were, actually, created as Subrules). Since only species listed in the Rule “Species” are allowed, every existing zombie is illegal.

scshunt:

25-06-2011 09:16:36 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

25-06-2011 20:52:53 UTC

CoV for

Bucky:

25-06-2011 22:12:05 UTC

CoV against .  We need a definition of subrule but this isn’t it.

scshunt:

26-06-2011 04:29:12 UTC

against again