Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Once we vote in the rules....

I propose that we proof read the rules to check for content errors that may contradict one another.

I suggest we proof read for typos.

I suggest we provide a means of keeping the rules current, to amend them as events play out that will show situations that were not included in the first draft.

Not to get bogged down in this now, but to have a procedure for amendments in place for when a situation crops up that merits that action.

But to stipulate that the situation MUST merit an amendment.

Who is involved with that? Do we all come  back to discuss this again? Is that left to the hands of the council? Would leaving it in the hands of the council perhaps undo the hard work we have put into them?

Just something to think about for a last review before the rules are made public.

I would request that...while we are voting on rules, that once that one rule has been voted in, if there were items that needed to be added or reworded for the sake of clarity, that it be done at that time. I have been very tempted to explain my wording during the recent voting but do not wish to derail the thread.

If a rule needs to be picked apart, articles voted in, others thrown out, let us do that rather than throw out everything from the rule? Some items of proposed rules are being agreed to while others are not. It is the ones that are not that need to be refined or omitted.

[Warren]

If trouble arises, might as well be us all again, less need to explain the lines of thought behind things.

[Bocchiere]

If trouble arises, might as well be us all again, less need to explain the lines of thought behind things.

Swear to me. Swear to me that if it isn't dead, we'll all come back.

[Hitler-Chan]

If trouble arises, might as well be us all again, less need to explain the lines of thought behind things.

Swear to me. Swear to me that if it isn't dead, we'll all come back.

I do not approve of the use of Pennywise >> Judge me if you want, watched the first movie in 5th grade, traumatized since then.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I still skirt round drains at the edges of sidewalks.

[Eric]

You want everyone to gather and proofread the "finalized" rules?

Sure, why not? Should there be a thread opened up specifically for that purpose?

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Yes. at the time of writing the rule up in its final form.

But also...how to keep the rules current and up to date with the times, is part of this discussion.

How do we handle amendments?

[Eric]

A committe? Or a gathering similar to this, where a proposal thread is made for an amendment where discussion occurs, and with enough support, a vote thread is made for official voting like we are doing with the creation process. All rule hosts, registered challengers, the Council, and rule followers in general should be allowed to vote. Anyone else should be excluded.

[Bocchiere]

We could just leave this board here once we are done and reconvene if we ever need to make an amendment or something.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I think that is a good idea. Then anyone...not just this body of souls...could propose an amendment and it could then be determined if that individual situation merits a reworking of the specific rule.

[Court]

This all seems pretty good to me.

[Mortiferous]

A committe? Or a gathering similar to this, where a proposal thread is made for an amendment where discussion occurs, and with enough support, a vote thread is made for official voting like we are doing with the creation process. All rule hosts, registered challengers, the Council, and rule followers in general should be allowed to vote. Anyone else should be excluded.

Seems legit to me. But if you didn't want to include the registered challengers, you could leave it to the host. What's that... 9 host, plus 5 council members? Hm... That might not be a good idea, seeing that there may be a tie. Nevertheless, in the situation, it does allow for 14 voices and shouldn't take too long since it's only 14 people voting and stating their reasons, vs the 14 plus the challengers.

[Eric]

A committe? Or a gathering similar to this, where a proposal thread is made for an amendment where discussion occurs, and with enough support, a vote thread is made for official voting like we are doing with the creation process. All rule hosts, registered challengers, the Council, and rule followers in general should be allowed to vote. Anyone else should be excluded.

Seems legit to me. But if you didn't want to include the registered challengers, you could leave it to the host. What's that... 9 host, plus 5 council members? Hm... That might not be a good idea, seeing that there may be a tie. Nevertheless, in the situation, it does allow for 14 voices and shouldn't take too long since it's only 14 people voting and stating their reasons, vs the 14 plus the challengers.

Not giving the challengers a voice in the amendment process seems like a bad idea, especially since the majority of rule followers, I imagine, would fall under the challenger's category.