Sunday, April 13, 2008

Proposal: [Evil] Careful what you say

Vetoed to death. Josh

Adminned at 15 Apr 2008 10:03:18 UTC

Add the following text to rule “Evil Schemes”

In any new proposal, if a henchmen uses the text “haha” as a part of text, such as Mmwuahahaha!, e feels very highly of eir scheme’s wisdom.  That proposal now requires a supermajority of 2/3 quorum rounded up in order to pass.  As a reward for the demonstrated consensus, that henchmen shall recieve 1 INT to eir skill if that proposal does indeed pass.  If the proposal is also an [Evil] proposal and it amended, added or created a rule, the henchmen may change one word in that proposal to one other word of eir choosing after it passes, with the change posted on the blog within 48 hours.  That rule is then amended with the indicated choice.

If “Goat Cheese” passes, add the following text to rule “Evil Schemes”

Goatee status shall be tracked on the GNDT under the heading GS.
If a henchmen uses the text “failure is not an option” in any new proposal, e feels strongly about eir scheme.  If eir proposal passes, the first henchmen who responded with a vote against shall have eir Goatee status changed to moldy and eir INT decreases by 1 if eir INT is greater than 0.  Ignore this effect if there is no against vote or if the Overlord voted against the proposal.  If the proposal fails, then it was the henchman that proposed who failed and eir Goatee status is changed to moldy and eir INT decreases by 1 if eir INT is greater than 0.  Ignore this effect if proposal was self-killed within the first 4 comments posted.

posted by Beane at 13 Apr 2008 05:51:00 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Yoda:

13-04-2008 14:03:12 UTC

against I don’t really like the idea.  Also, I think you meant 2/3 of the number of active henchman, not 2/3 quorum.

arthexis: he/him

13-04-2008 14:06:31 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

13-04-2008 16:42:39 UTC

against I like “failure is not an option”, but “haha” has several problems. 2/3 quorum. [Evil] haha proposals are too abusable if passed, thus making them much more likely to fail (+1 GL). “Haha” should have to go in the title, not just anywhere in the proposal.

dogfish:

13-04-2008 17:22:34 UTC

if 2/3 quorum were clarified, such as: two-thirds the number of active henchmen, rounded down, plus 1, then this would be clearer. But the idea isnt bad I’d say. imperial

aaronwinborn:

13-04-2008 17:49:03 UTC

against

Although it could be interesting to see something like:

“Any henchman may declare allegiance.”

to

“Any henchman may declare victory.”

Soyweiser:

13-04-2008 18:24:16 UTC

against thought the basic idea of rewarding excessive positive votes was nice. But the wording isn’t that good.

And the rewriting rules is plain abuseive and evil. :)

Beane:

13-04-2008 19:29:06 UTC

Plain abuseive and evil was exactly my intent.
A sloppy 2/3 quorum wasn’t.  In hopes to avoid a veto I’ll rewrite later and s/k
against

Purplebeard:

13-04-2008 19:59:30 UTC

veto Muahahahahaha! Also, allowing henchman to change the ruleset as will is NOT a good idea.

Purplebeard:

13-04-2008 19:59:42 UTC

veto Muahahahahaha! Also, allowing henchman to change the ruleset at will is NOT a good idea.

Purplebeard:

13-04-2008 20:00:18 UTC

How did that happen?

jay:

13-04-2008 21:55:27 UTC

against