Re: [another CFJ] Re: [Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of > > "DISMISS" with "¯\(ツ)/¯". Arbitor/CotC comment: please no > CFJ: "Today, I submitted a proposal entitled 'Judicial Jocularity Act'". > > Arguments: > > I don't think "title" is ever explicitly defined in the rules. Is the > exact sequence of Unicode characters important? We've been fairly comfortable with unicode in titles of things: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3574 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3570 (in those cases, it was necessary for agency titles to have "3 letters" (the rule was about three-letter agencies) and the unicode qualified. Then there's this case: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242
Re: [another CFJ] Re: [Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > I wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > Title: 풥퓊풹풾풸풾풶퓁 풥표풸퓊퓁풶퓇풾퓉퓎 풜풸퓉 > > Adoption index: 1.7 > > Chamber: Justice > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of > > "DISMISS" with "¯\(ツ)/¯". > > > > [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation > > of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste > > it from the ruleset occasionally.] > > CFJ: "Today, I submitted a proposal entitled 'Judicial Jocularity Act'". > > Arguments: > > I don't think "title" is ever explicitly defined in the rules. Is the > exact sequence of Unicode characters important? Or is it just the > English-language words made up of those characters? If I included > invisible Unicode characters in a proposal title, so that it looked like > plain ASCII but wasn't, would the answer be any different? > > (Disclaimer: This CFJ is at least 30% motivated by a desire to see how > long the subject line can get before something breaks.) Gratuitous: The Promotorial Proposal Office opines that it would create trouble for the office if copying had to be exact; it might well result in someone running a scam where everyone thought a proposal had been distributed, but it actually hadn't because the space in the title was required to be a nonbreaking space or something.This would emphatically be against the best interests of the game. Note that a special exemption for invisible or whitespace characters wouldn't help, since people could try more complicated things with diacritics or whatever. A restriction to changes affecting display of the title would certainly help, but it still wouldn't cover things like space width or look-alike characters. All problems could be avoided by a ruling that titles are not required to be copied exactly, and that it is the gist of the text that is important. Aris Promotor of Agora Nomic
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] [attn Rulekeepor] Re: BUS: [attn: Tailor] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
On 2/14/20 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > *sigh* > > CFJ, barring Falsifian: "Falsifian was awarded a Red Ribbon today." > > Arguments: > > Rule 2438 says: > > Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule > that, immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its > proposer earns a Red Ribbon. > > i.e., if a proposal does not change a rule, it does not earn its author > a Red Ribbon, even if it has Power >= 3. > > There is some uncertainty about whether Proposal 8308 changed a rule. > Some time ago (can't find the thread), Alexis asserted that it didn't > because it was too vague. > > The Rulekeepor is probably the best person to rule on this (no pun > intended). > > -twg I'll admit I handled this inconsistently: when the original chambers proposal was adopted, I assumed it worked by adding the list element to the end of the list. Then, when the fix proposal was adopted, I recorded it as amending the rule without changing the text (just to ensure there was a record of it). So, the official Rulekeepor stance right now is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . -- Jason Cobb
