|
Author
|
Topic: Amendment to 112
|
SkyCrashesDown
Member
Member # 25
|
posted November 01, 2002 09:39 AM
I would like to replace the full text of rule 112 with this:
quote:
To propose a rule a player will post it in the Newomic Proposals forum for discussion. The proposing player may freely amend or withdraw the proposal. Any player may request that the proposal (in its most recently-amended form) be put to a vote.
When a request to vote on a proposal is made, and that request is not invalidated by any rule or rules, the administrator will at the earliest opportunity create a new thread for the proposal in the voting forum. On this thread, players may vote for or against the proposal. The voting will stay open until the proposal passes or fails, or some other rule specifies that it must close.
A voting thread shall be locked by the administrator once the voting is closed.
A proposal thread shall be locked if any of the following takes place:
* The original proposing player requests that it be locked.
* The original proposing player withdraws the proposal.
* The original proposing player requests that the proposal be put to a vote.
* Any version of the proposal is put to a vote and passes.
For reference, here is the original text:
quote:
To propose a rule a player will post it in the discussion forum. There it can be amended, withdrawn or put for vote. It is the choice of the player who created the rule to put it up for vote.
Once the proposal is ready for vote it will be put in the voting forum by the admin. Players will respond with votes of yes or no in the thread. It will win or lose by the specifications of rule 102.
Commentary:
I feel like a lot of the problems we've been having have been due to the ambiguities of this rule. Hopefully this version makes up in clarity what it lacks in brevity.
Also, I made the change that any player can put an active proposal to voting, though only the original proposer gets the "final word" of closing the thread, amending the proposal, etc. There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, it saves duplicate threads -- there's nothing to stop someone from making a copy or near-copy of an existing proposal anyway, so why not allow the same effect without the extra thread? Second, this allows us to commandeer good proposals made by players who go inactive -- a very plausible circumstance.
--------------------
Rule 101: Everybody love Pupkin.
IP: Logged
|
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted November 02, 2002 02:22 AM
Please wait for the proposal about resolutions and replace all "rule" with "rule/resolution" or "rule or resolution" or anything preferable.
IP: Logged
|
|
SkyCrashesDown
Member
Member # 25
|
posted November 02, 2002 05:28 AM
Ah, good call. I was looking at another Nomic's rules, based more closely on Suber's, and they refer to any proposal generically as a "rule change," which can be a new rule, an amendment, or a proposal to transmute a rule.
This could get messy, but we definitely need to get it clear.
--------------------
Rule 101: Everybody love Pupkin.
IP: Logged
|
|
vulture
Junior Member
Member # 20
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:02 AM
We could put it this way (and change rules accordingly):
A "resolution" is anything that is voted on
A "rule change" is anything that ammends, repeals, changes (= ammendment), or adds a rule - give them names: "ammendment", "repealing", "proposal"
A "reordering" is anything that reorders rules
... and so on. So first there are only rules about resolutions in general. Then there are special rules for rule changes. They define what a "rule change" is and that itīs called that way. They also tell how they are handled. Then there might be a rule called "reordering of rules" which defines a resolution called "reordering" and what itīs all about.
Ok, thatīs all here somehow but without a clear naming scheme.
IP: Logged
|
|
SkyCrashesDown
Member
Member # 25
|
posted November 02, 2002 06:42 AM
Seems like what we need is to explicitly state important definitions in their own rules, rather than having them be implicit or scattered throughout various related rules. There's no reason that the rule stating proposal procedures should also define what qualifies as a proposal -- that just makes it harder to amend the system.
Perhaps what we need is a list of definitions that is separate from the rules, with its own ways of being updated.
--------------------
Rule 101: Everybody love Pupkin.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
