Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Proposal: Nothingness, another take.

S-K.—Chronos.

Adminned at 23 Feb 2007 18:45:05 UTC

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

* The only change to happen to the Ruleset or Gamestate upon its enactment would be the changing of its Status from Pending to Enacted.

Another try. I think the reason this Dynasty has failed to gather momentum was, in part, the long time it took to make real game rules. This Proposal is intended to make it possible to speed the queue a little. I‘m unable to see how allowing a Proposal to be failed earlier could lead to abuses. If you can see a way, please enlighten me about that.

posted by ChronosPhaenon at 21 Feb 2007 15:25:00 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Tiberias:

02-21-2007 15:28:10 UTC

for

Tesla4D:

02-21-2007 15:43:22 UTC

for No reason not to…

Josh:

02-21-2007 16:56:00 UTC

for

Amnistar:

02-21-2007 17:27:33 UTC

for

snowballinhell7001:

02-21-2007 17:44:41 UTC

imperial I’ll leave it up to our emperor in exile.

Hix:

02-21-2007 18:43:43 UTC

against Even if the only effect of this proposal is to get rid of the sort of proposals that are conditionally dependant on something (and I am not convinced that this is the case), I don’t want this change.  What if, for example, the “condition” isn’t true at the moment, but will be true if the Admins behave and wait until the proper time to Enact it (i.e. it reaches quorum or times out)?  Don’t think that this scenario is far-fetched, either.  I believe that we’ve recently had a proposal with a clause like “If so-and-so hasn’t voted for this proposal, it does nothing”.  Should a vigilante admin have been allowed to shoot the proposal down before its due time, just because so-and-so hadn’t yet voted?  Even without considering these situations, I’m perfectly comfortable with the current queue speed, and won’t vote just to accelerate it.

Oh, another issue:  we often make rules around here that care about whether proposals pass or fail, for reasons other than mere enactment.  Considering this, it is clear that this proposal punishes those who have written a proposal good enough to deserve enactment, but which “does nothing”.  This happens all the time in a situation which I don’t believe deserves punishment:  when someone writes a proposal that fixes loopholes in a rule, should that rule exist.

On a related note, this proposal doesn’t include a check to make sure that the Gamestate is not changed as a result of the FAILING of the proposal in question.

Finally, am I the only one to see that this is another attempt by Chronos to disallow Proposals from having delayed effects?  Eir previous attemts were not popular, but I’ll say it again:  if a majority (especially a Quorum) of voters want a proposal to pass, we should respect that; we should not allow a single admin to come along and kill the proposal just because it doesn’t do anything yet.  (I would argue that such an action does not, in fact, conform to this proposed rule, but I’m sure it would be a tough fight)

ChronosPhaenon:

02-21-2007 19:20:38 UTC

On a related note, this proposal doesn’t include a check to make sure that the Gamestate is not changed as a result of the FAILING of the proposal in question.

Good call. It is cause enough so I will vote against to S-K this and repropose.

Finally, am I the only one to see that this is another attempt by Chronos to disallow Proposals from having delayed effects?

Evil grim… Would you believe if I said that I myself hadn’t seen that?

spikebrennan:

02-21-2007 19:34:42 UTC

against per Hix