RE: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players

[Jorg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> << 1. It must refer to rules, not proposals
> (...)
> 
> This shows that it must refer to rules AND proposals.
> If it only applied to rules, a proposal could be made
> to take away all of Name's points and divide them
> among the other players.

Ah, yes, you're right. Or, even better, motions and rules -- so noone can make a should-be-proposal as a motion to circumvent the rule.

> << 2. It must also limit indirect references
> (...)
>
> This is covered by my clause about indirect
> references.

Yes, but it's not in Joel's proposal. I just wanted to make a complete list of what kind of rule I'd like to vote for.

> <<
> 3. No consent should be required from Officers
> 
> An Officer is not a "specific player". He has accepted
> the requirements of the office before, and he can
> resign at any time.
> >>
> 
> But should he be forced to resign if Randalling has
> suddenly been added to his office's requirements
> without his consent?

Yes.

If he says "If you pass that rule, I'll resign" then everyone would probably think twice about that proposal, so he still can do a lot to prevent such rules.

See my sample case below explaining why Officers should not have to agree.

> << 4. No consent should be required from the
> Administrator, however...
> 
> (...) Administrator is defined in R208 which names a
> specific player (Joel). Due to the indirect reference,
> Joel must consent to the rule change.
> >>
> 
> In a way, everyone is affected by every rule. Thus my
> proposal only deals with people who are mentioned in a
> rule, not affected by it.

Yes, everyone is affected, including "The Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman". That's the problem -- at least every officer-rule (indirectly) refers to the Administrator, who *is* a specific player.

It's hard, I'd even say impossible, to draw the line. Does the (very indirect) way in which the Administrator is affected in my example still require his consent?

That's why I made my "the Administor is an Officer"-proposal. It will still give him the power to threaten us with his possible resignation, and thus he can still prevent us from adopting proposals which he doesn't like. But at least it will make rule changes without his consent legal.


Suppose the following case: Some minor change to an officer-related rule is proposed, and while Joel doesn't like the change, he doesn't think it's so bad that he would have to resign. Everyone votes for the proposal except Joel and EvilGuy, who vote against. It gets adopted, and EvilGuy makes a CFJ stating that the rule change was illegal, because a specific player is affected who did not give his consent. Now what happens?

If officers are not *required* to agree (and the Administrator is an officer), there won't be any uncertainty about the legality of the rule change.


> On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
> Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350". 

Yes, me too :-)

I already made a definition, however:
Randalling (verb Randal): Some mysterious action a player is forced to take against his will. The only action that is never game related, even if mentioned in the rules. 


Joerg