It does look pretty clear to me that proposals are to be numbered:
108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.
If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.
First, how are we designating "mutable" and "immutable" among the newly-adopted rules? I'm not sure I understand how the 100 and 200 series of rules will interact with the 300 series and what the purpose of those numbers really is.
I vote in favor of the active proposition, if you will
This is something that needs clarifying.
Earlier, I may have made it look like propositions are numbered. They are not. A number is only assigned when a proposal has been approved. Only when the first NEW RULE is successfully approved will number 301 be assigned.
I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of the rules, even if they are your own rules. It looks like the props are supposed to be numbered when they are initially brought up. Might I suggest for clarity's sake that when proposing a change, new rule, etc. we all list the proposed item number, even if the assignment is not official?
This can be an official amendment later, but for now perhaps we can have a gentleman's agreement about it?
Personally I think this might clear a little confusion, even after nap's post. Perhaps we should pay attention (since we're all going to pay attention to the post) which number is currently allowed on the main page (I'm assuming nap is going to add all the rules to the original post as necessary). I think it'll make things a little more streamlined in any case...then again whatever floats everyone's boat.
I can see a situation where there might be some sort of time-delay proposal that could bring up the situation you mention, nap, but it looks like it can only be interpreted one way.
It does look pretty clear to me that proposals are to be numbered:
108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.
If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.
Well, I have no more authority to make that decision than you do, Monkeybomb.
I would say, however, that Rule 108 appears to indicate clearly that the next proposition gets the next number. So if this proposal fails, the next one will be 303, not another 302.
Well, I have no more authority to make that decision than you do, Monkeybomb.
I would say, however, that Rule 108 appears to indicate clearly that the next proposition gets the next number. So if this proposal fails, the next one will be 303, not another 302.
changing the subject, wtf guys, vote for my proposal
What purpose is there in encouraging people to naysay a proposal for no reason other than that it's going to pass anyway? I seriously think this rule is meaningless. It's just going to turn every successful proposal into an 8v6 regardless of how popular it is.
changing the subject, wtf guys, vote for my proposal
What purpose is there in encouraging people to naysay a proposal for no reason other than that it's going to pass anyway? I seriously think this rule is meaningless. It's just going to turn every successful proposal into an 8v6 regardless of how popular it is.
Do you really think that eight people will take one for the team, while six get points?
I don't see that happening.
I could be sold on this, though. But ultimately, I doubt that this proposal will pass until next round. All it takes is one vote against for it to be defeated.
Do you really think that eight people will take one for the team, while six get points?
I don't see that happening.
I could be sold on this, though. But ultimately, I doubt that this proposal will pass until next round. All it takes is one vote against for it to be defeated.
I'm saying that it will be a race to change your vote to negative without failing the proposal. Once 6 people disagree no one else will be able to switch without failing the proposal, but no one will want to be the one to actually vote in favor. It's dumb.
I will add you to the game after this round, unless someone has a good reason why we shouldn't do that. Because this is a win-win, in my opinion. Tie votes are a bitch, and you are a rad dude.
I guess that I could invoke a Judgment, since I'm the Judge for this turn, and bring Rank in that way.
But I have seen games ruined through abuse of the Judge power, so I don't want to do that.
I don't think you can do that at all, seeing as there's been no disagreement about the interpretation of a rule. And there's no rule about who decides that a Judge is needed, either.
Zek, if you add an addendum to your proposal, allowing Rank to join the game, I will change my vote.
Sure.
Amended Proposal 302:
Rule 204 is repealed, effective immediately. Furthermore, Rankenphile shall be added to the game as player 15, and will retain his position even should this rule be overturned.
Zek on
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
I will add you to the game after this round, unless someone has a good reason why we shouldn't do that. Because this is a win-win, in my opinion. Tie votes are a bitch, and you are a rad dude.
We shouldn't do that because it's against the rules.
Posts
Personally I think this might clear a little confusion, even after nap's post. Perhaps we should pay attention (since we're all going to pay attention to the post) which number is currently allowed on the main page (I'm assuming nap is going to add all the rules to the original post as necessary). I think it'll make things a little more streamlined in any case...then again whatever floats everyone's boat.
With rules in the 300's, I will just indicate in the NEW RULES section whether they are mutable or not.
In my experience, however, it is very rare for new rules to become immutable.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
My bad.
Zek is right.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Based on your new understanding of the rule, nap, if a prop is shot down, that number becomes freed up for the next prop, right?
edit, or since there can only be 25 active props, we just go back to 301 when 325 is created?
I would say, however, that Rule 108 appears to indicate clearly that the next proposition gets the next number. So if this proposal fails, the next one will be 303, not another 302.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
It is highly unlikely, however, that we will exhaust all 99 of those.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Or rather, something like it.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
But on further reading of the rules, it appears that new rules will just continue right on through the 400's, so there's no problem.
Looks like we need a new rule there.
EDIT: Or, you know... Do what Franko said.
What purpose is there in encouraging people to naysay a proposal for no reason other than that it's going to pass anyway? I seriously think this rule is meaningless. It's just going to turn every successful proposal into an 8v6 regardless of how popular it is.
Because of strategery, that's why, Zek.
I don't see that happening.
I could be sold on this, though. But ultimately, I doubt that this proposal will pass until next round. All it takes is one vote against for it to be defeated.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I want in on this.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I'm saying that it will be a race to change your vote to negative without failing the proposal. Once 6 people disagree no one else will be able to switch without failing the proposal, but no one will want to be the one to actually vote in favor. It's dumb.
I don't see a problem with it, personally.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I vote in favor of the me joining the game.
I believe a proposal needs to be passed.
I vote in favor of the active proposition.
I guess that I could invoke a Judgment, since I'm the Judge for this turn, and bring Rank in that way.
But I have seen games ruined through abuse of the Judge power, so I don't want to do that.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
What's interesting about the game actively discouraging the passing of proposals?
Zek, if you add an addendum to your proposal, allowing Rank to join the game, I will change my vote.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
hey now, don't go playing games with my heart
And I know this game would be way radder if you were playing. (Not to mention easier to run, since you would give us an odd number again.)
But I can't just shoehorn you in. Also, you had a chance to sign up, fucker. Did you think it was going to be boring and dumb?
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
no, I thought it was going to be horribly convoluted and confusing, but now that I see it in action it makes way more sense.
Also, turns out I got one less project at work to monitor so I might actually have time to watch this shit.
Well, here's what I'll do.
I will add you to the game after this round, unless someone has a good reason why we shouldn't do that. Because this is a win-win, in my opinion. Tie votes are a bitch, and you are a rad dude.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I don't think you can do that at all, seeing as there's been no disagreement about the interpretation of a rule. And there's no rule about who decides that a Judge is needed, either.
Sure.
Amended Proposal 302:
Rule 204 is repealed, effective immediately. Furthermore, Rankenphile shall be added to the game as player 15, and will retain his position even should this rule be overturned.
everything said here is true.
We shouldn't do that because it's against the rules.
I guess no.