Proposal: Bureaucratic Limits and Delays of Edicts
I humbly submit that the following text be appended after the first paragraph of rule 19 - Gruel.
This should solve the ambiguity over retro-activity of Edicts, as well as the open-ended game-stalling power that they potentially have in the present wording.
As further clarification, if this proposal passes, then all instanced of the word "edict" in the rules will be changed to "Edict".
As still further clarification, if this proposal passes, then the description of the Property "House" in rule 20 will be modified to remove the clause "issued by the Philosopher-King". This is because the rules have no mechanism in place for keeping track of who issued which Edict, and if it becomes the case that players other than the P-K are able to issue Edicts, then the existing wording cause confusion as a House will exempt players from only a subset of the Edicts, without that subset being clearly displayed.
Vetoed by Aaron Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:37.
An Edict is issued by making an official post with a subject of the form "Edict: [Title]" where [Title] is an Edict title of the poster's choosing. The text of the post must contain the text of the Edict. The post may optionally contain text which is not part of the Edict, so long as it is clearly distinguishable from the Edict text. An Edict post which does not follow this format is illegal.
An Edict is enacted when there are no pending proposals which are older than the Edict post. When an Edict is enacted, the text of the Edict is added to a list at the bottom of this rule. Any Edict in the list at the bottom of this post, even if placed there by a mechanism other than the one described in this paragraph, is considered "enacted".
An Edict which places constraints on Proposal formatting which contradict an existing Rule or Edict may not be enacted. For example, an Edict stating "Proposals may not use the word Proposal in their subject" cannot be enacted, as it contradicts Rule 3.
This should solve the ambiguity over retro-activity of Edicts, as well as the open-ended game-stalling power that they potentially have in the present wording.
As further clarification, if this proposal passes, then all instanced of the word "edict" in the rules will be changed to "Edict".
As still further clarification, if this proposal passes, then the description of the Property "House" in rule 20 will be modified to remove the clause "issued by the Philosopher-King". This is because the rules have no mechanism in place for keeping track of who issued which Edict, and if it becomes the case that players other than the P-K are able to issue Edicts, then the existing wording cause confusion as a House will exempt players from only a subset of the Edicts, without that subset being clearly displayed.
Vetoed by Aaron Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:37.
<< Home