Preface:

Currently, there are no consequences for rule-breaking defined in the rules. What happens when someone breaks a law that doesn't explicitly state what would happen if said law was broken?

For example, take a look at the law that I got passed not too long ago:

§003e: Voting on one's own motion is hereby prohibited.

What would happen if you did vote on your own submission? It doesn't say that a vote cast on one's own motion would be considered null and void, and so one could argue that one may still vote on their own submission and have said vote count even with this law in effect.

Most of the laws currently in place do not define what would happen if they were broken, and thus one could argue that none of these laws have any actual effect, either. The following motion seeks to close this massive loophole:

I make a motion to properly define a consequence (or consequences) for rule-breaking. Henceforth, if a law is broken and/or contradicted by any kind of action, event, or anything else, whether that action, event, etc. be the use of an item, the casting of a vote, the passing of a motion, the posting of a comment, etc., that action, event, etc. shall be considered null and void and shall have no effect on anything whatsoever. A rule that defines what happens if said rule is broken shall not be affected by this motion. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Alicorn_Capony's motion to define consequences for rule-breaking.