On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I submit this Proposal, AI-3, "Can or can't we?" (pending to wait for > comments): > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > [The rules are unclear/silent on whether "CAN, SHALL, MAY" imply > "by announcement" and game opinion is somewhat split. We should make > it clear, but I'm not sure there's an AI-3 majority favoring either > option. Rather than leave it unclear, this uses an AI-3 majority > to approve that we want it clarified, but leaves it up to majority > vote whether "by announcement" is implied. (even people voting > AGAINST can have their preference counted on that part). > > > Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing: > Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules. > with: > A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > Rules for performing the given action. > > [this over-arching protection means in general, "by announcement" > is NOT implied]. > > > If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting > period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A" > along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by > appending the following paragraph: > > If a Rule states that an entity CAN, MAY, or SHALL perform an > action, but does not explicitly specify a method for performing > it, then "CAN by announcement" is specified by that Rule as a > method for performing that action (subject to any conditions > included with the CAN, MAY, or SHALL). > I dislike this extra option, and in particular that it only requires a majority to apply. I'd really prefer splitting this out to separate proposals so that AI=3 applies to both of them separately, or at lesat requiring 3 times as many OPTION A votes as non-OPTION A votes. Also, this doesn't take into account PRESENT; is that intentional? -Alexis
