Thursday, January 22, 2009

Proposal: Self-killing DoVs

Arth vetoed this, but didn’t admin it -Darth

Adminned at 23 Jan 2009 08:34:26 UTC

Add the following to the end of the core rule Victory and Ascension:

If a Member of the Staff votes against their own DoV, said DoV may be failed at any time by any admin.  However, the creator of the DoV may not post another DoV until 120 hours have passed since the time their DoV was failed.

Comments

Amnistar:

01-22-2009 20:07:28 UTC

for

I’ll probably sit down with the core rules in the future and see if it’s possible to clean them up to prevent any of the issues we have that continuosly pop-up.

The Cube:

01-22-2009 21:16:10 UTC

for

Oze:

01-22-2009 21:27:04 UTC

for

Wakukee:

01-22-2009 21:32:43 UTC

against  This was brought up before. It seems to encourage people to post more DoV’s.

Qwazukee:

01-22-2009 22:05:30 UTC

for Hey, I like this idea! Where’d you get it from, Rodlen?  : D

zuff:

01-22-2009 22:12:24 UTC

against

Amnistar:

01-22-2009 22:18:49 UTC

Waz, that was why the delay was placed.  The S.K. removes it, ending a haitus, but you have to wait 5 days to try again.

Qwazukee:

01-22-2009 22:29:37 UTC

Waz?

arthexis:

01-22-2009 22:39:28 UTC

for Warm

Qwazukee:

01-22-2009 22:46:17 UTC

I don’t understand. How can this be Warm?

Kevan:

01-22-2009 22:48:51 UTC

Making DoVs less of a slow, clunking nuisance will encourage people to post more of them. I guarantee we’d see a lot of lazily speculative “what the hell, this probably won’t work, but I’ll self-kill it in a couple of hours” DoVs - limiting them to one every five days won’t make any difference, outside of actual endgame.

And self-killing gives a lot of power in the ability to freeze and unfreeze the game at will. If victory is near and I don’t want anyone messing up my plans overnight, I can get an accomplice to issue a spurious DoV, and agree to self-kill it when I’m awake again.

against

Yoda:

01-23-2009 00:11:29 UTC

against

SingularByte:

01-23-2009 00:12:40 UTC

against

Wooden Squid:

01-23-2009 00:34:20 UTC

for

arthexis:

01-23-2009 01:56:27 UTC

against CoV Per Kevan. However, I think we should have a mechanism in place to dispatch baseless DoVs (and CfJs too) that have no chance of passing anyways. BTW, once again: Warm.

Darknight:

01-23-2009 02:26:22 UTC

against warm? odd indeed

Rodlen:

01-23-2009 02:36:56 UTC

against Warm?

Please veto warmly.

Wakukee:

01-23-2009 03:25:22 UTC

Hmm,what about a s/k that only the Watcher or equivalent can implement? Which is to say, it can be failed at any time by the Watcher following a self-kill, thus preventing Kevan’s problem.

Qwazukee:

01-23-2009 03:26:52 UTC

Sorry, that^^^ was me, my brother forgot to log out.

The Cube:

01-23-2009 04:38:41 UTC

against COV per Kevan. Whoever thought such a simple rule would promote abuse?  Who abuses these kinds of rules anyway?

Maybe this is Warm because the theme involves declaring victory and then killing yourself?

Qwazukee:

01-23-2009 04:54:33 UTC

@Cube: What?

The Cube:

01-23-2009 05:51:35 UTC

Er, what to what?  Mostly that was a joke.

Qwazukee:

01-23-2009 06:06:03 UTC

Ok, sorry.  : p Didn’t make any sense for a minute there.

arthexis:

01-23-2009 06:59:28 UTC

veto Warm (just to make it really official)