Rules Team HQ - Open for Business

[quozl]

Originally Posted by tcglkn

Yea to what Bats already had. Nay to anything else without more discussion.

We are having more discussion right now, aren't we?

[IAmBatman]

Since we don't seem to have language we all immediately love for that clause, my current preference would be to pass what we have, then have a separate conversation and vote about adding that on. As is, I'll let others chime into the discussion and call this on time if it's not called before time based on voting.

[IAmBatman]

I believe per our voting rules, @quozl has an additional 48 hours to vote here before he'll be counted as an abstain.

[MrNobody]

I agree with LP’s wording, but if we want to do a whole separate vote for it we can do that.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

I agree with LP’s wording, but if we want to do a whole separate vote for it we can do that.

Can you specify what you mean by LP's wording? I added in what LP was suggesting earlier.

[MrNobody]

Okay, I assumed that’s what this whole additional wording discussion was about. If it’s about Quozl’s thing, I think we can still discuss that, but yeah let’s get what we have through first.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

Okay, I assumed that’s what this whole additional wording discussion was about. If it’s about Quozl’s thing, I think we can still discuss that, but yeah let’s get what we have through first.

We're on the same page now. But I'm going by the voting rules we have for Hero votes (since I can't find a better precedent in our rules) so quozl has 48 hours to vote still.

[quozl]

I don't understand why there is an objection to adding a line for more clarity.

But I guess if you want my vote now, it's Nay because the whole point of this vote is to add clarity.

[IAmBatman]

This passes. Fwiw, I held it open for discussion and no one seemed interested in discussing, so once the time limit hit, I gave you the 48 hour tag, per procedures.

Hopefully a Hero can take this recommendation to the other Heroes for official voting, though if folks want to clarify the movement part first, I'm fine with having that discussion too.

[toyhandle]

Originally Posted by quozl

That wouldn't have the symmetry of the attack sentence and also moving 0 spaces is a weird rule. We should strive for clarity.

I wouldn't mind having "a move of 0" clarified. It is pretty weird, since there's also wording like "if this figure did not move."

Trying to think of how to make things symmetrical. Maybe something like:

- If the figure could move 0 or more spaces, it still has a move to give up.
- If the figure could target (or should it be attack?) 0 or more figures, it still has an attack to give up.

[IAmBatman]

That second bullet just feels unnecessarily confusing compared to what we have IMO.

[tcglkn]

I agree neither of those seem ideal.