[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] EugeneMeidinger submits p25

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's a bug in this that you might fix, namely something like "this 
may not be applied to this rule". Otherwise any Minister (and most 
notably the Minister of Law or the Webminister) could "rectify" that 
rule to remove the ability of others to nullify Rectifications.

Actually, it might be better just to put a delay on it - a 
Rectification takes place two days after it was submitted unless any 
player objects in the meantime.

But then again, that's basically what Emergency Gamestate Fixes do... 
maybe we should turn those into general purpose maintenance things?

--
Wonko

On Apr 25, 2005, at 10.49 AM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> EugeneMeidinger has submitted a new proposal, p25.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Proposal 25/0: Return of executive tidyness.
> A Standard Proposal by EugeneMeidinger
> Last modified on nweek 86, nday 7
>
> Add a new rule to section 3:
>
> {{
> == Powers of Executive Tidiness ==
>
> If a game document contains an error in grammar, spelling, format, or 
> content; or system errors, system downtime, program errors, or other 
> unanticipated system events have altered the game state in a manner 
> not explicitly permitted by the rules, the Minister responsible for 
> producing, maintaining, or listing the document shall be permitted to 
> Rectify it by posting a Rectification to a public forum stating what 
> is being changed and correcting the faulty text. This power is 
> referred to as Executive Tidiness.
>
> Any Player may, if e thinks the Rectification did anything other than 
> fix an error, object to the Rectification via a post to a public 
> forum, in which case the Rectification shall be anulled, and the 
> document shall revert to its original text. Objections posted more 
> than 3 ndays after the Rectification they object to shall have no 
> effect.
>
> Executive Tidiness also includes the power of Ministers to make the 
> following corrections in documents for which they are responsible:
> 1. Removing mentions of an object or type of object which no longer 
> exists.
> 2. Adding, in comments, a note of clarification indicating the result 
> of a CFI pertaining to the interpretation of that document.
> 3. Removing irrelevant, colorless, and uninteresting comments that 
> lack aesthetic, literary, scientific, or historical value.
> 4. Clarifying an ambiguity in such a way as to enforce a Judge's 
> decision regarding a CFI.
>
> }}
> [[Someone mentioned it so I thought I'd find it and propose it]]
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> This Message was sent automatically by the Wiki.
>  Please do not reply to the sender of this message, as your replies 
> will be ignored. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a 
really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would 
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them 
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, 
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it 
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that 
happened in politics or religion.
      -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss