On 2/6/26 10:40, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Infractions are fine, really
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors: Cosmo
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the list item
> (excluding the preceding hyphen) beginning "Dive (Referee)" with the
> following:
>
> {
>
> Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister grants a specified player two blots.
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the reason for the fine my be any
> grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation of the
> rules, against the person to whom the blots are granted.
>
> }
>
>
> Amend Rule 2531 ("Defendant's Rights") by replacing "it does not include
> the specific reason for the fine" with "it does not describe the
> specific infraction that occurred".
>
> Amend Rule 2450 ("Pledges") by replacing "in determining an appropriate
> fine" with "in determining an appropriate penalty".
>
> }
>
> --
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Infractions are fine, really
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Cosmo, Mischief
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the list item
(excluding the preceding hyphen) beginning "Dive (Referee)" with the
following:
{
Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister grants a specified player two blots.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the reason for the fine may be
any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation of
the rules, against the person to whom the blots are granted.
}
Amend Rule 2531 ("Defendant's Rights") by replacing "it does not include
the specific reason for the fine" with "it does not describe the
specific infraction that occurred".
Amend Rule 2450 ("Pledges") by replacing "in determining an appropriate
fine" with "in determining an appropriate penalty".
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
