Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Proposal: Because it should never have been removed in the first place.

Fails 4-9. Timed out.—alethiophile

Adminned at 31 Dec 2009 05:32:25 UTC

Remove the text “The Djinni has voted to VETO it” from the second bulleted list in rule 1.5 Enactment.
Add the sentence “Vetoed proposals may be failed by an admin at any time, even if the proposal in question is not the oldest pending proposal” to the end of that same rule.

Reintroducing the fast veto.

Comments

Klisz:

12-29-2009 05:19:31 UTC

for  for  for  for  for

I unidled just to vote for  this.

Bucky:

12-29-2009 05:57:32 UTC

for

Darknight:

12-29-2009 06:03:06 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

12-29-2009 06:19:21 UTC

for  for  for  for  for

Kevan:

12-29-2009 10:39:56 UTC

against Because it creates the weird social pressure of the Djinni being expected to veto proposals that have been self-killed, or which are tanking.

And because it rewards bad proposals. If a player submits a flawed or unpopular proposal, part of the cost of that is that they lose a proposal slot for 48 hours. But if a player makes a terrible proposal, to the point where the Djinni vetoes it, then they get their slot back straight away. Which potentially gives the Djinni a reason not to veto a truly terrible proposal, which seems like a bad idea.

spikebrennan:

12-29-2009 13:56:45 UTC

against
per Kevan, who succinctly states the argument for my position

Excalabur:

12-29-2009 15:18:12 UTC

Getting vetoed should never be good for the person being vetoed. 

It also screws up the queue: things can appear, get vetoed, and disappear before people ever see/have a chance to comment on them.  As a fair number of players use the automatically generated queue to keep track of what’s going on, that’s a problem.

ais523:

12-29-2009 15:31:28 UTC

I use sparrowscript and RSS to keep track of BlogNomic; it’s really hard to make sure you see everything otherwise. (It’s only after I found that was possible that I really started playing BlogNomic; it’s hard to play nomic unless you can keep track of everything that’s going on, email nomics are much better in that regard.)

Kevan:

12-29-2009 15:42:17 UTC

We should try to get the Sparrowscript built directly into the ExpressionEngine template, actually - it made life much easier for me, when it came in. (It’s this, for anyone who hasn’t seen it.)

ais523:

12-29-2009 15:44:50 UTC

Ah, thanks for the URL; I tried to find it, but couldn’t.

Ienpw III:

12-29-2009 16:38:41 UTC

Greasemonkey slows down my computer too much.

Ornithopter:

12-29-2009 17:12:21 UTC

against

Oze:

12-29-2009 18:43:06 UTC

against

Darknight:

12-29-2009 21:54:14 UTC

against COV

alethiophile:

12-29-2009 22:22:57 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

12-29-2009 22:45:13 UTC

It doesn’t reward them; the people are no better off than if they’d not been vetoed. Also, the Djinni doesn’t have to veto s/ks. I know I won’t be doing so.

Also, Excalabur: you were the one complaining this had been taken out a while ago.

Excalabur:

12-29-2009 23:01:14 UTC

Ienpw: yes, they are.  They get a proposal slot back.  Proposal slots are worth quite a lot, depending on how moribund the dynasty is.

And i’m the one that proposed to take it out.  I strongly dislike the ‘fast veto’.

Ienpw III:

12-29-2009 23:07:55 UTC

I think vetoes should be rarer. I don’t think the fast veto is the problem - it’s the trigger-happy Emperor.

There:

12-30-2009 01:15:16 UTC

against

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-30-2009 16:22:19 UTC

against

digibomber:

12-30-2009 18:44:32 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

12-30-2009 21:25:32 UTC

Totally agree with Ienpw. The concept of a veto is meant to apply immediately and finally. So long as it isn’t abused, that’s how it should be.