Call for Judgment: Wait, was this legal?
Not a CfJ. To mark this as illegal, unfortunately, I have to close off comments.
-Hix
Adminned at 29 Jul 2010 11:45:16 UTC
I was reading through the dynastic rules again and noticed that a clause I thought was was present was missing. In Kevan’s enacted proposal “Crime and Treason” (http://blognomic.com/archive/crime_and_treason/), the third part of his proposal changes the following clause:
In the Rule “Information Clearanceâ€, replace “No Citizen may Author a Proposal that Creates, Modifies, or Repeals a Dynastic Rule with a clearance higher than their own.†with:-
If there is a way in which a pending Proposal could - if enacted - create, modify or repeal a Dynastic Rule whose Clearance Level is higher than the Clearance Level of the Citizen who submitted the Proposal, then that Proposal is Treasonous.
At the time of submission, Kevan was a Citizen with RED clearance, while the clause that he attempted to replace was an ULTRAVIOLET clause. It is my belief that Kevan was in violation of this very clause by authoring this proposal, and that therefore said proposal was illegal. Should we revert just that previous clause and leave everything else from Kevan’s proposal as enacted, or retcon the entire proposal?
Kevan: Concierge he/him
Are you arguing that “No Citizen may Author a Proposal” means “no Citizen may be the Author of a Proposal” rather than “no Citizen may take the action of Authoring a Proposal”?
If you’re not, the “No Citizen may Author a Proposal” rule didn’t yet exist when I made my proposal, it was still in the queue. (The rule came in at 28 Jul 2010 15:42:10, I’d already made my proposal at 28 Jul 2010 09:07:42.) I just wrote my proposal knowing that the rule would exist.