Friday, September 30, 2011

Proposal: Truly, the most beautiful expression of nothingness

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Oct 2011 01:56:50 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule with no title and no text.

 

Comments

Klisz:

09-30-2011 17:47:43 UTC

for  arrow

Kevan:

09-30-2011 17:55:21 UTC

against  arrow

Josh:

09-30-2011 17:58:05 UTC

for  arrow

Prince Anduril:

09-30-2011 18:10:46 UTC

I don’t think that nothing is very beautiful.

Prince Anduril:

09-30-2011 18:11:00 UTC

against

Blacky:

09-30-2011 18:17:59 UTC

against  arrow Seems to be dangerous…

Kevan:

09-30-2011 18:20:12 UTC

Ais doing something “for flavour” is always an ominous sign.

(Possibly relatedly, we should maybe drop that silly core rule of “if a rule isn’t named, the enacting admin can make up any name they like, so long as it doesn’t meet these particular criteria” and just say “rule must be renamed to ‘Unnamed Rule’”.)

Kevan:

09-30-2011 18:29:59 UTC

And oh, right, rules don’t have a “title”, as Ais says here, they have a “name”, so Ais’s proposal doesn’t “specifically [state] that the rule should have no name”. So he could get a pet admin to inject any text into the ruleset when this enacted. (The “does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset” restriction doesn’t seem impossible to dance around.)

ais523:

09-30-2011 18:37:28 UTC

Hey, I have to do things that aren’t scams sometimes, otherwise the actual scams would be obvious in their constancy.

I think it’s hilarious that you managed to find an actual, viable scam in a rule that I’d just thrown out as a joke, though.

against s/k as it gives too much power to someone who isn’t me.

Soviet Brendon:

09-30-2011 18:37:36 UTC

against  arrow

omd:

09-30-2011 19:30:31 UTC

arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow

bateleur:

09-30-2011 21:37:03 UTC

As an aside, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that “title” does not mean “name” here. Although the ruleset refers to names of rules, it appears to do so in a sense wholly compatible with natural English usage. Since “title” is also a reasonable word for that same thing, that’s what it should be taken to mean if used in this way.

It doesn’t matter for this proposal of course, since it’s been self-killed, but I’d argue the scam doesn’t work anyway.

scshunt:

10-01-2011 00:26:13 UTC

for  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow

omd:

10-01-2011 00:41:57 UTC

veto