Monday, February 19, 2007

Proposal: Nothingness

S-K.—Chronos

Adminned at 21 Feb 2007 15:25:39 UTC

In rule 1.5 Enactment, add to the buleted list under “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:”:

* It would do no changes to the Ruleset or Gamestate if enacted.

I intend with this to allow Admins to fail Proposals contingent on conditions that are already false.

Comments

Hix:

02-19-2007 20:00:43 UTC

against Don’t want it to be this way.  Also, poorly worded, since the enacting of any proposal always changes the Gamestate (e.g. the proposal is no longer Pending).

Amnistar:

02-19-2007 20:33:55 UTC

Right…he wants to be able to kill those proposals that are “If _______ passes, this does nothing”

spikebrennan:

02-19-2007 20:44:27 UTC

Do you intend for it to be possible to fail a conditional proposal whose conditions have failed even if it is not at the top of the queue?

Amnistar:

02-19-2007 20:57:23 UTC

well, since we’ve currently got a conditional proposal sitting at the top of the qeue, with failed conditions.  His point is to allow such proposals to be failed even if they have time left.

Josh:

02-19-2007 22:32:13 UTC

against

Amnistar:

02-19-2007 23:35:10 UTC

for Because it’s a way to clear out proposals on the end of the queue.  And if these proposals should alread y be cleared out…well…then we need to get on that.

Tiberias:

02-19-2007 23:38:45 UTC

for

Doodle:

02-20-2007 01:02:41 UTC

against if the author of a proposal chooses to make such a conditional proposal, let said author suffer any consequences.

Tiberias:

02-20-2007 01:43:14 UTC

Spike: As it gets added to the list of ways the oldest pending proposal can be failed, I would say not.

Doodle: What consequences would those be?  I agree with your sentiment, but don’t see any.

Doodle:

02-20-2007 03:27:06 UTC

Tiberias: I was referring to each player’s proposal limit. Obviously not a particularly harsh consequence, but still a limitation on their actions.

Amnistar:

02-20-2007 04:06:48 UTC

But what about those proposals that could be passed but are waiting for later proposals to be passed?  This keeps our queue less full of proposals that no longer have to be waiting.

Tiberias:

02-20-2007 05:33:01 UTC

Also, if they are able to be online, they can self-kill such proposals to get the same effect as this proposal.  It’s simply a matter of keeping the queue moving.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-20-2007 12:05:37 UTC

Hix: That change (the proposal ceasing to be pending) is result of rule 1.5, not of the Proposal itself.

Spike: No. It says explicitly “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed(...)”

Doodle: The only consequence being addresse dhere isa a fronzen queue. It’s not intendend to benefit slopy writers. Ut’s intended to benefit the whole game, removing useless Proposals from the top of the queue.

Josh: Could you comment your vote, please?

Josh:

02-20-2007 12:10:41 UTC

If I had had a comment to make with my vote then I would have made it.

Rodney:

02-20-2007 14:22:35 UTC

against

snowballinhell7001:

02-20-2007 20:32:54 UTC

To easy to manipulate… against

Edometheus:

02-20-2007 20:34:19 UTC

for
If it does nothing, then why should e keep it on the proposals list? This merely slows down the game.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-20-2007 21:58:23 UTC

Snow, can you give an example, please, so I can try to rework a substitute?

viewtyjoe:

02-21-2007 01:01:31 UTC

against

Bucky:

02-21-2007 05:29:37 UTC

From the bench,
against  against  against 

If it becomes a problem, the Emperor equivalent can simply VETO it.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-21-2007 11:44:16 UTC

For the record, Bucky’s vote should not be counted, for he is idle, as is the current Emperor equivalent.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-21-2007 15:25:09 UTC

against S-K. Will try another take.