|
|
Post by sparkpowder on May 11, 2011 11:43:04 GMT
I oppose Azerog's proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on May 11, 2011 13:51:47 GMT
Ehe, I see what you did there with part 5...
I approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 11, 2011 20:43:46 GMT
...
I don't think you get it.
As per Rule Changum (Every post can have up to one rule change. A rule change is defined as creating a common rule, changing a common rule, removing a common rule or proposing an action. Having more than one rule change in a post is forbidden. Making a rule change is not required.), I am allowed to create a common rule in each post. I did not propose to create Rule Virulum Virulum Virus Acrem Virulentus Virus Virulmentum Viro Virus Crescit Virulum Virula Victum Popularis Inordinatio Virulal Virulum Virulal Virulalia Viral* Viroluminia Viro Vira αρρώστια Virulentus Virus vln2π, oh no. I CREATED IT. Not PROPOSE to create it. But CREATE it. See the difference?
Oh, I PROPOSE to remove the Common Rule Cheatus.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 11, 2011 23:02:28 GMT
That rule is invalid- Rule Cheatus is still there, albeit common.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 11, 2011 23:11:06 GMT
Rule Forca: A rule may not force another player to approve an action or to vote against an action.
Denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 11, 2011 23:29:19 GMT
That Rule has nothing to do with anything. Although I can't wait for someone to go after Virium Alpha. I pretty much killed the last one of these with rule Glacium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 11, 2011 23:39:18 GMT
Hm... I see. Well then, I disapprove Elmach's newly proposed Rule anyways. I vote for the Exaltation of Rule Cheatus.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 11, 2011 23:40:48 GMT
I vote for the Exaltation of Rule Cheatus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 12, 2011 5:19:25 GMT
GAH
DON'T YOU GET IT
YOU DON'T PROPOSE NEW RULES
THEY ARE ADDED AUTOMATICALLY
YOU ONLY HAVE TO PROPOSE CHANGES.
(Otherwise, Rule Cheatus doesn't exist)
Additionally, Rule Cheatus does not contradict Rule Virulum Virulum Virus Acrem Virulentus Virus Virulmentum Viro Virus Crescit Virulum Virula Victum Popularis Inordinatio Virulal Virulum Virulal Virulalia Viral* Viroluminia Viro Vira αρρώστια Virulentus Virus vln2π in any shape or form.
DO I HAVE TO EXPLICITLY STATE THAT I AM CREATING A COMMON RULE!?
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 12, 2011 21:00:26 GMT
Actually Rule Viriam Alpha does have a very subtle purpose that in conjecture with Rule
Formerum is an ass, but I can work around it. The only reason it can exist is because of a loophole I will now fix.
Rule Stopbeingarses v1:
A dark rule is defined as being a rule created by Rule Viriam Alpha, Rule Stopbeingarses v1 or by another dark rule. With the exception of Rule Viriam Alpha, dark rules, and Rule Stopbeingarses no rule may create a new rule. If Rule Stopbeingarses vn is removed or edited then Rule Stopbeingarses vn+1 is created with an identical description to Rule Stopbeingarses vn.
Oh, Rule Virulum Virulum Virus Acrem Virulentus Virus Virulmentum Viro Virus Crescit Virulum Virula Victum Popularis Inordinatio Virulal Virulum Virulal Virulalia Viral* Viroluminia Viro Vira αρρώστια Virulentus Virus vln2π cannot be created because 1. you cannot propose to delete a common rule. You can only delete a common rule or propose to delete an exalted rule. 2. It cannot delete Rule Cheatus because Rule Cheatus states that a rule cannot change the status of another rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 12, 2011 22:00:02 GMT
...
Oh.
Also, here is my rule:
Rule Namus Rula:
No rule other than Rule Viriam Alpha, Rule Stopbeingarses, Rule Namus Rula, and Rule Terminus, may reference any rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 12, 2011 22:53:46 GMT
If things get too out of hand be aware that I may be willing to propose against rules that are currently essential to create a solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 12, 2011 22:59:42 GMT
If essential, I would go against those, or vote for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 17, 2011 4:27:25 GMT
Rule Beanarse
No post following Reply #43 may use the words "Rule", "Propose", or "Proposal".
...
SHIT
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 17, 2011 23:35:36 GMT
That doesn't work by Rule Terminus. You need to use the word "Rule" in order to make a rule change by Rule Namos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 19, 2011 3:41:18 GMT
Oh.
I will find a loophole someday!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on May 19, 2011 4:04:09 GMT
Rule Spammus: All posts must following this reply must not contain what is considered spam by forum rules, if it does, it is considered invalid. Also, all posts must contain at least 15 words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 19, 2011 5:06:49 GMT
I delete Rule Spammus.
Unfortunately, by Rule Spammus, I must type a few more words. The word "the" was the last word I needed, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 20, 2011 20:15:29 GMT
At least 15, eh? Well then... I vote for Rule Spammus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on May 20, 2011 22:25:45 GMT
Too bad, I already deleted it.
Remember. You can create and delete common rules without voting. You have to vote for exalted rules and changing rules(?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 21, 2011 2:40:12 GMT
I propose a new Rule. Rule Propos, this Rule makes it so that every post done in support or denial of a proposal is valid. I'm not really sure if this is valid or not itself. All well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 21, 2011 17:07:48 GMT
Its not valid. If it was valid people could break rules whenever they wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 24, 2011 15:03:03 GMT
Rule Protectus:
A common rule requires the consent of at least two people to be deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 24, 2011 23:09:16 GMT
No, no, no! That is a horrible rule! A horrible horrible rule! I vote for it to be deleted, as people could post game-wrecking rules which wuld take longer to delete than is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 25, 2011 0:23:28 GMT
I not sure whether that rule breaks any rules or not, but I'm just going to go with OBG and delete it, and not bother recording it.
Now can someone support me in demoting Rule Actor? I need to make some important changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 25, 2011 1:03:23 GMT
I support promoting Rule Cheatus, and demoting Actor,
You forgot to record rule Virium Alpha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on May 25, 2011 21:25:56 GMT
I propose:
Rule Restorus: Rules must be deleted using the logic as one of the following: being ridiculous, being godmodding, or with the support of another member. Rules may be restored if four people vote to get it back, other than its creator.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 25, 2011 23:08:56 GMT
This rule IS ridiculous in a way- ridiculous andn godmodding are subjective to an insane level.
So Ima delete it.
If I cannot, I'll edit it so that it reads: Banana.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 26, 2011 19:47:54 GMT
Another rule is destroyed immediantly after creation...
There is no need to continue supporting promoting cheatus, it already passed.
I propose to amend Rule Actor so it will now read:
Rule Actor v2:
Rule Actor: An action may be creating, modifying, or deleting an exalted rule, transcending a common rule to an exalted rule, demoting an exalted rule to a common rule, electing a president, impeaching a president, banning a user, or unbanning a user.
I support the proposal I just made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on May 26, 2011 23:14:17 GMT
I support Ganon's
Rule Actor v2 Proposal.
|
|
[img src="http://i.imgur.com/BKhxo.png[/img
