We hold this truth to be self-evident: that Nomiblog should be a light-hearted place, where no one is discriminated against due to lack of verbiage or time.Therefore, this law seeks to happily reduce the time spent worrying about exact phraseology. It also strives to eliminate situations where someone's intent was clear, yet the exact wording of the law created a loophole or corner case that screwed them.
To that end:
0a: The provisions in Rule 26, section 26c shall be extended to allow the Administrator to not only fix grammatical and spelling errors, but also to correct situations where someone clearly meant something but used improper terminology. For example: Requesting a Sword incorrectly, or forgetting to title a Master-At-Arms post "Defense of the Realm". In such situations, the Administrator is empowered to correct their post to match their intent. The point of this power is to ensure that sloppy wording is not penalized when intent is clear.
0b: This (the changes empowered by 0a and 26c) includes and enables retroactive changes and the just and rightly removal of penalties unfairly accrued by means of unintended technicalities. Example: The Master-At-Arms forgets to include "Defense of the Realm" in their post of that nature. Not only can the administrator fix that, but if they catch it after the votes are tallied and Cowardice awarded, the Cowardice level can and must be removed.
0c: If someone feels the Administrator has incorrectly or inappropriately altered something of their own creation, they may request that the administrator return it to their original wording. The administrator is compelled to honor all such requests within the week he or she becomes aware of them. Every week that passes without doing so, the Administrator is fined 1 QI'yaH for every player who publicly acknowledges having known of the problem.
0d: When players are voting for or against this bill (bill 0) in addition to the customary "yes" or "no" (and any other provisions granted by rules such as indicating troop support and/or baronial double vote) they may indicate (in whatever method they feel is clear) whether they feel the Baron should be penalized -2 QI'yaH for his previous miscalculations. If, at the time this bill passes, there is a simple majority of votes in favor of his penalization, 2 QI'yaH will be deducted from his score.
0e: Immediately after the passage of this bill into Law, the administrator shall be specifically compelled to remove the first level of Cowardice that Ulaire Toldea ever received.
0f: Once the actions described in 0d and 0e have been taken, sections 0d, 0e, and 0f suppress themselves. The administrator shall alter the color of said sections (as he did with Rule #Negative26) to clearly indicate that they are powerless and non-existent.
0g: It is still possible to make Bills and Rules that intentionally require specific wording. To do so, include a statement that says something along the lines of "This Rule is not affected by Rule # Zero, so all wording must be exact." Example: A future bill could include a clause saying "Rule Cosby is immune to Rule Zero, so puddin pops may only be invoked by precise spelling."
It is my sincere and happy hope that this bill provides for the common defense, and supports the continued health and longevity of all Nomiblog.
17 comments:
Summary:
0a: It's what you say, not how you say it.
0b: If you know something's been phrased incorrectly, fix it.
0c: The administrator can't abuse their power.
0d: When you vote on this, include whether or not you want Rolfe to lose 2 QI'yaH.
lesser details:
0e: removes Ulaire's cowardice per 0a & 0b
0f: hides 0d-0f once the bill is passed so it's easier to see the ongoing effects of the Rule
0g: you can still make a bill that requires precise wording/spelling if you wish.
Yes. And I happily voice in favor of the -2 QI'yaH penalty to myself.
Hrm. I have a couple questions. How does this affect the "alterations" idea behind #26, since often intent wasn't totally clear and could be clarified?
I'm also not sure about invalidating bureacuratic legalese backwards. I would vote in favor of this bill moving forward, but I'm not sure I like the undoing it undoes.
I would also like to note/remind folks that Rule Cosby says "a player may invoke Bill Cosby by using the phrase puddin pops in an active post or comment on an active post." The example above meets this criteria.
Pursuant to 26c, the administrator altered this post to add the letter "a" to a word that was lacking one.
How does this affect the "alterations" idea behind #26, since often intent wasn't totally clear and could be clarified?
Effectively, it would allow a bill to be edited - but not freely. If the wording clearly did not describe original intent, and this was brought to the attention of the administrator, he would be compelled to fix the wording and/or apply the intent.
The original poster could then veto such edits if they too didn't match that player's intent.
Effectively it retains the protection against last-minute alterations to bills that rule 26 established, but allows some freedom for alteration in cases where the concept was clear yet communicated poorly.
It would solve typos, confusing phrases, and the like. It would not allow functional changes beyond the closing of unintended hidden loopholes.
But if frees us up in those situations where someone posts "do you realize this bill means *insert bad thing here* ?"
Ulaire indicated to me a lack of time during the work-week to carefully reread every rule before posting. As a result of that lack of time, the Smurf post had the wrong title, and he/she/it got a Cowardice Level.
Seemed a reasonable complaint, so I vowed to fix it.
Digital Sextant:
I'll happily answer your concerns about this bill affecting things backwards:
part 0g was written to allow 200.a.1 to require specific phrasing.
Essentially, Bill Zero only sets the default - it states that other rules can over-ride it, and Bill Cosby already has the necessary language to do so.
Hope that explains things in a sufficiently happy way.
Yes, I understand now and am happy to vote for the bill at this point.
Yes, I understand now and am happy to vote for the bill at this point.
Yes - ..:: :.::. ..:... ::::. :.:.:: ..::. :. .:. ::.:: .:.:.::::.:.:
Happily curious or curiously happy -
..:: :.::. ..:... ::::. :.:.:: ..::. :. .:. ::.:: .:.:.::::.:.:
Is that Braille, Morse Code, or something else? I tried putting it into two online translators, and nothing useful came up.
I'd be happy to propose a bill of "English is the official language of Nomiblog", but I'd be just as happy to avoid anything even remotely like it.
Ha ha! I just like the way it looks. It is a cool pattern that can be used to express binary or Morse code. However in this case it was just used as a cheap lure.
It worked! I bet I lured you away from 15-30 min of your life.
Question: Does this rule allow the administrator to alter a bill under consideration when the discussion has revealed more accurately the intent of the bill's author?
Braap! intent of the bill's author! Braap!
Question: Does this rule allow the administrator to alter a bill under consideration when the discussion has revealed more accurately the intent of the bill's author?
Yes, pursuant to parts 26a and 26c, this bill would be applicable from the moment the first vote was cast by anyone other than the original poster.
It can clarify and declutter the wording, but it can't alter the intent or function of the bills in question.
It worked! I bet I lured you away from 15-30 min of your life.
Happy to say that you indeed wasted 20 minutes that I might have otherwise wasted myself. Victory is yours, good sir.
Post a Comment