(sigh)
1. Rule 209 states, in relevant part, that votes "should... include "Yea" or "Nay" (and variants and any other options that are allowed in future rules)". Is the word "variants" separate from the "allowed by future rules" clause, thus allowing my votes in the previous post? Or does the rule only allow variants that are allowed in future rules, thus invalidating a plethora of previous votes.
2. If the answer to the first question is the second answer, how should this ruling be applied?
In post 272, Vijarada wrote:3. Does the provision of rule 314 that states that "if a party ever falls below two players, active or inactive, it is automatically disbanded." mean that a player that falls inactive disbands their party, meaning that at the time of their election, McMenno and Fellisan were not party members, thus changing their treatment under Standing Committee subsection XII?
As the one that proposed the amendment to create parties, I will take this one and rule that the answer is no. You cannot lose party membership by falling inactive; you can only do so by voluntarily leaving the party (under the current rules).
I don't want to unilaterally rule on anything else without talking to the rest of the Standing Committee.
In post 276, StrangerCoug wrote:You cannot lose party membership by falling inactive; you can only do so by voluntarily leaving the party (under the current rules).
Correction to the second part: You actually can also lose party membership by everyone else leaving the party since a party must have at least two players in it at all times.
1. Should The Standing Committee rules, subsection XI, require 20% of players rounded up or rounded down?
2. Are Combo Points, provided for by rule 321, the same entity as points, provided for by rule 325? Did the moderator have inherent power or power under rule 326, after the election of the Standing Committee, to so rule?
3. Does the provision of rule 314 that states that "if a party ever falls below two players, active or inactive, it is automatically disbanded." mean that a player that falls inactive disbands their party, meaning that at the time of their election, McMenno and Fellisan were not party members, thus changing their treatment under Standing Committee subsection XII?
2) Was already answered by me and covered by rule 326 (aka the "Necessary and Proper Clause"). Basically, yes they are.
3) That was me misinterpreting a rule. Their party membership was restored.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Hosting: The Grand Neighborhood [Ongoing]
1. Does rule 325, which uses the word "henceforth" as it's timing qualifier, apply to itself, so that Vijarada has one point? Should the moderator be given deference for so ruling?
Actually, are you disputing or just asking for clarification? So far, I interpreted as from the moment that rule was accepted and onward. My prev post was also clarifications on the current rulings.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Hosting: The Grand Neighborhood [Ongoing]
1. Should The Standing Committee rules, subsection XI, require 20% of players rounded up or rounded down?
2. Are Combo Points, provided for by rule 321, the same entity as points, provided for by rule 325? Did the moderator have inherent power or power under rule 326, after the election of the Standing Committee, to so rule?
3. Does the provision of rule 314 that states that "if a party ever falls below two players, active or inactive, it is automatically disbanded." mean that a player that falls inactive disbands their party, meaning that at the time of their election, McMenno and Fellisan were not party members, thus changing their treatment under Standing Committee subsection XII?
2) Was already answered by me and covered by rule 326 (aka the "Necessary and Proper Clause"). Basically, yes they are.
3) That was me misinterpreting a rule. Their party membership was restored.
1. Does rule 325, which uses the word "henceforth" as it's timing qualifier, apply to itself, so that Vijarada has one point? Should the moderator be given deference for so ruling?
Actually, are you disputing or just asking for clarification? So far, I interpreted as from the moment that rule was accepted and onward. My prev post was also clarifications on the current rulings.
These aren't permanent rulings or even formal btw. Just my current policies until/unless someone has an issue w/ them.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Hosting: The Grand Neighborhood [Ongoing]
I'm just unsure what our policy should be. (The proposed rule would be an extension to the normal policy. I guess that does stretch the bounds of the rules some)
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Hosting: The Grand Neighborhood [Ongoing]
In post 272, Vijarada wrote:3. Does the provision of rule 314 that states that "if a party ever falls below two players, active or inactive, it is automatically disbanded." mean that a player that falls inactive disbands their party, meaning that at the time of their election, McMenno and Fellisan were not party members, thus changing their treatment under Standing Committee subsection XII?
As the one that proposed the amendment to create parties, I will take this one and rule that the answer is no. You cannot lose party membership by falling inactive; you can only do so by voluntarily leaving the party (under the current rules).
I don't want to unilaterally rule on anything else without talking to the rest of the Standing Committee.
If this is an official ruling, you just implicitly ruled that one person is 20%. Also I'm pretty sure the rest of the Standing Committee could still overrule you on this. I think you should write opinions on what your ruling would be, then the one with the more votes in the committee gets adopted.
1. Does rule 325, which uses the word "henceforth" as it's timing qualifier, apply to itself, so that Vijarada has one point? Should the moderator be given deference for so ruling?
Actually, are you disputing or just asking for clarification? So far, I interpreted as from the moment that rule was accepted and onward. My prev post was also clarifications on the current rulings.
The rules on Standing Commitee ask for petitions of "dissent", so to cover my tracks technically I'm going to claim that in all cases, I agree with whatever isn't already being done.
In post 288, Vijarada wrote:If this is an official ruling, you just implicitly ruled that one person is 20%. Also I'm pretty sure the rest of the Standing Committee could still overrule you on this. I think you should write opinions on what your ruling would be, then the one with the more votes in the committee gets adopted.
Proposal 330: Parties may, using any method they deem appropriate, select one of their members to be the party recruiter, who is responsible for encouraging players outside of their party to join their party.
I think it's disappointing that we have more players that are not affiliated with a party than are. I'd like parties to play a bigger role in the game.
In post 294, StrangerCoug wrote:I think it's disappointing that we have more players that are not affiliated with a party than are. I'd like parties to play a bigger role in the game.
