[Game Thread] U-15: Non-Tolerance for Descriptive Failures

[ProjectMoon]

Proposal ID: U-15 Name: Non-Tolerance for Descriptive Failures Affects: Universal Rules Any Council member* may veto a rule during its voting period if the rule is not clearly defined, or if the member in question finds the description to be faulty or incomplete. Exarch Orin may overrule the veto if he believes the veto was initiated for reasons not relevant, or if the member who proposed the rule clarifies the rule. If clarifying the rule to be satisfactory also changes the meaning of the rule, members who previously voted for the rule may change their vote. (*The terms 'Council member' and 'volunteer' are synonymous for the purposes of describing anyone eligible for voting in a council.)

[Monsoon]

I vote yes. More power to the councils, I say.

[goplayer7]

I say that instead of a veto, because that gives the power of any single person to end a proposal being made even if the majority agrees to it, any person can force a re-claification of the rule that is acceptable to the proposer and the person that needed clarification; after which everyone can redo their votes. Due to the fact that it is a re-claification of the rule and not a change to it, there would also be no more need for the Exarch Orin to overrule the veto.

[NEON725]

That was my original thought for the proposal, but I changed it to move through a veto motion to prevent a pocket veto to the demand for clarification. I believe I worded it such that one spiteful person could not stop the proposal.

[goplayer7]

Sorry, I misread the 2nd part of the 2nd paragraph. You are correct.

[NEON725]

I will clarify my reasoning for anyone else with a similar comment:

If this rule only called for a clarification to the rule, then it would be entirely void by anyone who pretended they did not hear the request. This style of pocket veto is unacceptable, but putting this veto into effect will provide incentive for the person who proposed the rule, because they still lose points if the veto passes.

Then of course, I provided a paragraph that gave Orin permission to step in if anyone attempted to use this rule for mischievous reasons.

[dhibidy30]

I would like to see two addendums to this rule before I vote on it either yes or no.

1: What process can any concerned party invoke a judgement call on the Speakers part? Are thier any limits to this? If thier is not it occurs to me that this rule could be used to ask the speaker to rule on EVERY proposal that any given participant does not agree with. This mechanism adds an unwanted layer of buerarchy to the simple process of voting yes or no. It is completly acceptable to ask a proposal champion to clarify any given proposal before it is voted on.

2:By what standards are we measuring "clear definition"?
What can be plain simple language to one voter may not be for the next.


Thier should be some standard in place before I will give either a yes or no to this proposal.

[goplayer7]

My thoughts on the two addendums.

1: That is the point of the rule, to make sure that everyone is happy with the clarification of it. Also, the Exarch Orin can override a veto without any change being made in cases that the veto in unwarrented

2: Once when the proposer has made, what he feels to be, a clarification then the veto is done. However the person can veto again saying that it still isn't good enough.

[NEON725]

Goplayer has answered the question well enough. The second paragraph of the rule was put there to remove anyone who abused the rule.

Technically speaking, a clarification could mean everything from a re-wording to the changing of U-13 to U-14. As he said, the invoker may initiate a veto again if it is not satisfactory, forcing the speaker to make the rule as clear as possible.

[Monsoon]

I'm still inclined to vote yes on this proposal, but a question - who decides if the rule has been made "as clear as possible"?

[dhibidy30]

Originally Posted by Monsoon

I'm still inclined to vote yes on this proposal, but a question - who decides if the rule has been made "as clear as possible"?

exactly!

[goplayer7]

The Exarch Orin decides when it has been made clear enough because he can stop the veto without any change to the proposal.

[NEON725]

I will repeat. The clarification can mean any change at all. If it is still not suitable then the veto is initiated again. This keeps going until both parties are satisfied or Orin decides the person making the vetoes is just a prick.

[goplayer7]

Vote: Yes

[dhibidy30]

I vote a resounding no as the council two threads will show how misplaced a veto power for nonunderstanding is.