“105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.” Obtained here, for those who are lost like me (though I think I’m finding my way back).
New Theoretical Prop 303: Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. However, if 10% or fewer players cannot be found, the turn can be declared over (and veto or acceptance of a proposal based on votes present, with no aye or nay assumption made about the lack of votes from one or more players) for the purpose of a new proposal if and only if that new proposal has no effect on the previous proposal.
Since it isn’t Officially My Turn Yet, I welcome any suggestions to that (such as “dude, just propose that 105 be stricken with necessary commonsense caveats”).
OK. I think I understand. Or at least I’ll fake it.
New Double-Secret Theoretical Prop 303: Rule 105 is mutable.
Do we need to make any other immutable ones mutable or vice-versa? I mean, one could theoretically propose “Rules 101-106 are mutable”, yes?
Iamp-- Ugh, someone DOES get the reference, unfortunately. I feel like I’ve spent half my adult life listening to “Ugh, gotta pawn some of this stuff” and “I am overburdened” from the laptop across the couch. . .
Just for the sake of clarity, this is a hypothetical question. My Prop is gonna be “rule 105 is hereby made mutable” or something to that effect.
But it seems to me that Rule 103 defines what is a rule-change, but does not define what is not a rule change, such that I think it is an assumption, though a valid one, to say that this rule implicitly states that only one rule’s mutability status can be changed per Proposition. I think it’s similar to the outwardly stated “any right not explicitly given to the people or to the states is given to the people” in this country’s laws. Except that in this case it’s not outright stated. I just think that here, absence of anything saying “you can’t mutate mroe than one rule at a time” means it isn’t against the rules.
Of course, this is a largely moot point, as one could merely Prop 304 right in with “rule 103 is hereby made mutable”. I just don’t think we should be making assumptions here:)
I think that our first priority (as a group) has to be to ensure the continuation of the game. That means addressing the possible situations:
A player disappearing (allowing for his eventual removal from the game).
The next player (who is to propose the next rule) disappearing. (I.e. a time limit to propose new rules when it’s your turn).
The disappearence of this message board (Cecil forbid, but you never know).
I’m sure that there are others, but those three are the ones that first come to mind and the ones that have the most immediate chance of bringing the game to a halt.
But then, if we just propose a new rule that explicitly states that more than one rule may be changed per turn, that would save the step of transmuting 103, then amending it.
I can’t see anything in the rules about mutable and immutable rules clarifying each other, only about direct conlfict, and that, even, is between rules of like kind, not a conflict between mutable and immutable rules.
IE you first have to say “no, wait, let’s make that one mutable” before you can change it. If a Prop came up Just Now saying “rule 103 shall be changed to…”, it would be vetoed because as of right now, Rule 103 is immutable.
There’s nothing saying that you can’t change a rules status re: (im)mutability, and “no rule is absolutely immune to change” clears up confusion about whether or not we can change immutable rules. But you cannot change an immutable rule without first making it mutable.
