Friday, January 06, 2006

Proposal: This is a proposal.

Vetoed to nuke the queue, and for other reasons stated within. —75th Trombone

Adminned at 07 Jan 2006 11:49:04 UTC

Add a new Law to the ruleset:

In any conflict of interpretation, Laws shall have precedence over Rules. No Rule may prevent an Admin from un-Idling a Protagonist in manner prescribed by another Law. Repeal this Law at the end of this Dynasty.

Erm, ‘negates or amends’, I wonder.. in any case we should be able to remove that provision with a CfJ if we can’t defeat it this way.

posted by Angry Grasshopper at 06 Jan 2006 18:57:05 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

Elias IX:

06-01-2006 21:49:59 UTC

for Although in the way that the second sentence is worded, it seems exploitable.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

06-01-2006 22:31:31 UTC

for Voting FOR all these to get it fixed as soon as possible.  Admins should enact/fail these slowly enough for me to come in and CoV or Veto the unneeded ones.

Rodney:

07-01-2006 02:32:40 UTC

for

Excalabur:

07-01-2006 09:19:55 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

07-01-2006 10:11:13 UTC

for

Saurik:

07-01-2006 13:32:17 UTC

I don’t like leaving the blanket Laws > Rules provision in the Ruleset. against

Rodney:

07-01-2006 18:40:10 UTC

But shouldn’t laws always be greater than rules?

Saurik:

07-01-2006 19:23:18 UTC

Rodney: currently there are very few cases where that is the case, and having such a thing just provides for a larger set of Rules that technically legal but are simply impotent because they purposely or apurposely modify a Law. It seems better to just have those Rules be not allowed to exist in the first place because they were contradictory.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

07-01-2006 19:48:26 UTC

veto Because Saurik’s right, and because Del Taco does the same thing more cleanly, and because we need to nuke the queue ASAP, and because when we implement something like this it needs to be more thorough, less holey, and permanent.