Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Call for Judgment: Unforseen Glitches

Reached quorum 6-0. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 12 Jul 2017 15:53:18 UTC

Because the recently enacted new rules (I think the ones suggested by Cpt_Koen) didn’t allow an ascension address to repeal pending proposals and nobody caught it, the ruleset is inconsistent. This also had our new Seraphim mistakenly make two proposals, when they already had two pending ones.

First:
Amend ” one of the new Expedition Leaders makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify a chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed.” to

one of the new Expedition Leaders makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify a chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules and/or pending proposals to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed and any pending proposals not listed are failed.

Secondly:
Replace “Explorer” with “Pactmaker” and “Expedition Leader” with “Seraphim”.

Thirdly:
Make the illegal proposals “Threads of Magic”, “Mana” and any otherwise valid votes on them legal.

Comments

Cpt_Koen:

07-11-2017 21:14:07 UTC

How did this happen?

In the Proposal at https://blognomic.com/archive/core_dynastic_a_sect_is_a_cult_but_is_a_cult_a_sect , the only core rules amendments are of the form
“Replace this text: [quotes] with this text: [quotes]”
And none of the text replaced has any mention of failing pending proposals.

card:

07-11-2017 21:28:34 UTC

I looked at the last dynasty’s core rules, neither did theirs or even older ones. So probably those pending proposals were failed illegally. I guess it was just never noticed and assumed that an ascension address could fail pending proposals because all of the past dynasties have done

It wasn’t anyone’s change then, just an omission. I only noticed because I read the “ascension address” part more closely due to the recent rule changes. You can look at the most recent version, before pokes’ proposal overwrote those rules, and see that the ascension address makes no mention of failing pending proposals. https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset&oldid=4442#Victory_and_Ascension

pokes:

07-12-2017 01:59:34 UTC

for

Sphinx:

07-12-2017 07:34:04 UTC

for

Cuddlebeam:

07-12-2017 07:42:09 UTC

for

Kevan:

07-12-2017 08:28:55 UTC

for Usual practice has always been for the new Emperor to veto the old proposals, but this is probably cleaner. (It does create some grey space in that the Emperor’s action fails the proposal but - if they’re not an admin - they can’t update the blog entry to mark it as failed.)

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

07-12-2017 10:20:04 UTC

for