Due to the events of the previous week, I propose the Limited Revision Act to protect voters from having changes made to a proposal after their vote has been cast.
26a) Once a bill has been proposed, the proposer cannot make changes to the bill once a vote has been cast by someone other than the proposer.
26b) This bill does not prohibit discussion/clarification of the proposed bill, nor does it prohibit reposting of a past bill with changes made (or not changed) in following weeks.
26c) Exception would be grammatical/spelling errors which could be corrected by the administrator.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Rule # 26 Limited Revision Act
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Yes. I like to be an informed voter.
Three considerations:
1. What if the bill is ambiguous?
2. Grammatical errors can make a significant difference in the interpretation of the bill. Who decides which errors are errors?
3. If people can change their vote, why shouldn't the bill be changeable? I think the negative voter impact on a changed bill is a reasonable way to enforce good intentions.
No - I agree with "sex", and I really hate agreeing wit anyone. I vote no because I think a person who revises this much damages themselves more than any law can. The vote or two cast where a person may not have wanted if far overshadowed by the mistrust and general unhappiness other players have for the fat finger foe.
Also I often flub a letter here or there and would seek in to correct it anyway.
Yes. Huzzah for conflicting rules!!!
It's not really conflicting. #Negative26 clearly has causes for what to do if both end up being passed.
And in case it wasn't clear, I was happy to point out the lack of contradiction. Nearly as happy as I am with the lack of contradiction itself. In turn, that's nearly the happiness I feel upon reading dear Kevin's happy proclamation in favor of conflicting rules. Very very happy happy.
Oh fine! Huzzah for similar rules that have provisions to cover the areas that each one does not and describes which rule take precedent should they conflict in any way. Gee that sounds SOOOOOO much better!
yesssss
nnnooooo
(You feel compelled to count this vote as neither a "yes" or "no" vote. We like the idea of causing confusion amongst the ranks, so that our dark purpose remains dark. We find that in light of the number of votes that do not start with "yes" or "no", we must not vote yes or no.)
Comments that start with "Yes" or "No" count as votes. All others count only as comments.
So sayeth the rules. And I'm happy to point it out to you.
Which means, technically, according to the rules, Ulaire's comment counts as a "yes" vote.
I hope Morgul is happy with that. I know I am.
Even without Ulaire's vote, the bill is likely to pass 2 to 1.
Personally, I find this Bill unnecessary. As Sex and Small both indicated, the backlash of the voters is fair deterrent to massive editing of bills.
In addition, the unpredictable timing of exactly when the votes will be tallied makes the last minute editing of bills a dubious and unreliable tactic.
Just the same, I'm happy to see this rule pass.
No. Because I may want to torpedo one of my bills later.
2 to 2 then, plus Ulaire's vote that is technically a yes, but obviously intended to not be so.
As Baron, this conundrum makes me happy.
As administrator, I'd best tread cautiously. The rules require me to interpret that comment as a "Yes" vote, but to do so may irk a player who clearly didn't mean for it to be a yes vote.
Interpreting it as a "No" or an abstenstion will cause the bill to fail.
Interpreting it as a "yes" will cause the bill to pass.
Therefore, Ulaire's vote is of primal importance.
Now, I could just solve this with a vote of my own.
But, while very happy, I am also very conflicted. I'd like to think that the citizenry of nomiblog are good enough people to not go changing bills at the last minute to sneak hidden riders through. Yet at the same time, I see the potential for abuse.
I'm happy with abuse, but I still see it as a bad thing. A bad thing that makes me happy. Your Baron is a complex and multilayered individual.
Yes. And invoking my double-yes vote. So sayeth your Baron. And happily so.
In the real world, I'd like to think we're all good enough people that laws against Murder aren't necessary. Wouldn't it be nice if people just knew not to kill each other, and no one ever died violently, and no one ever went to jail?
But, realistically, that's not practical.
So, since I see a loophole for potential abuse, and someone else has kindly spent their personal one bill for the week in an attempt to seal said loophole, I have little choice but to vote in favor of this bill.
Besides, Bill #Negative26 is terribly complicated and broken. But all that complication fades away to simplicity if there is a Bill #26. So it's clearly in our best interests to vote yes on Bill #26. It plugs a hole in the original 8 rules, and it saves us from fraggish complication.
Further, if I were to now murder someone, I'd be more likely to get away with it, since I'm on the record as saying I think murder is bad, that we all shouldn't murder, and that'd I'd gladly vote for an anti-murder bill. The thought that this position might make me actually more likely to get away with murder makes me very, very happy.
Thank you, Amy, for providing us with a wonderful bill and me with a wonderful alibi and/or smokescreen. I'm very happy that you are partaking in this blog.
Post a Comment