by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:07 am
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:02 pm
by Unibot » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:15 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Does a resolution have to say at some point either "The World Assembly" or "The Security Council" (either at the start, or in the operative clause)? I think I came across a post which suggested so, but I noticed some of the early resolutions failed to do so, and it's never really been mentioned as a requirement.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:19 pm
by Unibot » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:36 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:46 pm
by NERVUN » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:49 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Whew! I'd seen this a-brewing, but I didn't know what an undertaking you were going to make of it. Sterling stuff!
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:10 pm
Ardchoille wrote:I haven't done any fine-tooth combing of it, but will. On the question about whether it needs The World Assembly/The Security Council, yes, it does. We were all coming to terms with the existence of the SC when #1 was written, but I think people realised early on that grammar was sorta necessary. Someone has to do the condemning.
On whether it should be "The WA" or "The SC", make it "The WA" because SC and GA statements are made with all the authority of the world body. For consistency, both chambers should be seen as acting on behalf of the WA.
NERVUN wrote:I think Ard likes it just because she's quoted everywhere.
by Ardchoille » Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:27 pm
Ardchoille wrote:If, as seems to be the case, it's acceptable to all parts of the game, great. I've tried to avoid terms which would give credence to the all too evident notion that Rule 4 attempts to enforce one style of play above another, and that's why I was leery of "multiverse".
by Unibot » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:59 pm
Ardchoille wrote:On whether it should be "The WA" or "The SC", make it "The WA" because SC and GA statements are made with all the authority of the world body. For consistency, both chambers should be seen as acting on behalf of the WA.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:39 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:24 pm
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:28 pm
Ardchoille wrote:We'll leave this one with the proposal writer, then. So long as there's a recognisable authority doing it, it's OK.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:08 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:<snip> ... is there a new convention in place that proposals like these be deleted, on a technicality?
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:01 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Riiight ... so long as there's an appropriate authority. (And if there's any dispute about which one's appropriate, whichever mod's then awake can stop carousing long enough to emerge from the ModCave and deign to hand down a decision. I'm not specifying which authorities are "appropriate" because who knows what Max might get up to in the coming years.)Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:<snip> ... is there a new convention in place that proposals like these be deleted, on a technicality?
Nope. We've got three already that just go "Hereby condemns". In the "Hereby condemns" formulation, the body acting is implied, but not stated -- I don't think any but a truly Bastard Mod would delete on the grounds that the implied body was an incorrect, impossible or otherwise inappropriate body.*
So: there has to be an action -- condemns, commends, liberates -- and the proposal in which the action is described must, by statement or implication, ascribe that action to an appropriate body ... or, if you'd prefer that in sane terms, just keep on doing what we've been doing.
*Artichokeville tucks that idea away for later examination*
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by NERVUN » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:25 pm
Unibot wrote:Ardchoille wrote:Riiight ... so long as there's an appropriate authority. (And if there's any dispute about which one's appropriate, whichever mod's then awake can stop carousing long enough to emerge from the ModCave and deign to hand down a decision. I'm not specifying which authorities are "appropriate" because who knows what Max might get up to in the coming years.)
Nope. We've got three already that just go "Hereby condemns". In the "Hereby condemns" formulation, the body acting is implied, but not stated -- I don't think any but a truly Bastard Mod would delete on the grounds that the implied body was an incorrect, impossible or otherwise inappropriate body.*
So: there has to be an action -- condemns, commends, liberates -- and the proposal in which the action is described must, by statement or implication, ascribe that action to an appropriate body ... or, if you'd prefer that in sane terms, just keep on doing what we've been doing.
*Artichokeville tucks that idea away for later examination*
Right, so.. if someone decides to ascribe the thoughts and actions of a proposal to something, it must be an appropriate authority.. but otherwise the ascription is inferred -- so if one leaves out the appropriate authority from the masterhead, it's a sort of acceptable form of legalistic shorthand? And thus, not actionable?
by Ardchoille » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:25 pm
Unibot wrote:Right, so.. if someone decides to ascribe the thoughts and actions of a proposal to something, it must be an appropriate authority.. but otherwise the ascription is inferred -- so if one leaves out the appropriate authority from the masterhead, it's a sort of an acceptable form of legalistic shorthand? And thus, not actionable?
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:28 pm
Ardchoille wrote:A general comment: this amount of detailed nitpicking is really useful, but we're not going to get all the hypothetical i's dotted and the t's crossed right now. Somewhere in the future lurks MegaRulesLawyer who's going to come up with something obviously illegal but not specifically forbidden (because we didn't think of it), so don't worry too much if there's still a bit of wriggle room.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:38 pm
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:45 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Possibly the stamp should just say, "Nuts".
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:59 pm
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:32 pm
Ardchoille wrote:*snicker* I was about to promise Sedge that I'd clean out all this spammy chat. But now, of course, he can just do it himself.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by NERVUN » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:58 pm
Unibot wrote:But how could you join the Dark Side?
by Unibot » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:01 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement