Monday, September 04, 2006

Proposal: Time signature

Timed out and enacted by majority (6-2). —Thelonious.

Adminned at 06 Sep 2006 09:16:13 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule titled “Time Signature” with the following body.

There is a variable known as the “Time Signature” written in the form x/y where 2 < x < 12 and y is a member of {2, 4, 8}.  The conductor may often change the time signature by making a post to that effect.  With the exception of these posts, the time signature is not officially tracked so it is the responsibility of each musician to track the time signature for emselves.

Add a subrule titled “Proposals” with the following body.

Rule 1.3 does not apply.

Any Musician may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes unless…

  • e already has 2x/y proposals pending or
  • e has already made 3x/y Proposals that day

...where x and y are substituted in from the current time signature and fractions are rounded down.

When the conductor changes the time signature, e must veto all proposals that are in excess of the new limit (starting with the most recent such proposal).

Proposals can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Proposal is first put forward, it is considered Pending.

posted by Thelonious at 04 Sep 2006 14:41:00 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

Elias IX:

04-09-2006 15:10:52 UTC

Well, it would be nice to have the time signature on the main blognomic page, maybe like

“The First Dynasty of Thelonious in 7/4 time”

Thelonious:

04-09-2006 15:33:55 UTC

I just thought I’d keep it like a real musical score - you only get notified when the time signature change (unlike key signature which is repeated at the start of each line as well).

Bucky:

04-09-2006 16:55:22 UTC

What, no 1/1 time?

Thelonious:

04-09-2006 17:08:20 UTC

No.  But I have just seen a typo in my proposal.  I’d intended to say…

2 <= x <= 12.

...so that I was allowed 2/2 time.  Oh well, I can always propose to modify if this passes.

Hix:

04-09-2006 21:33:30 UTC

Could you also be clear on what you mean by “all proposals that are in excess of the new limit”—what limit are you referring to, exactly?

ChronosPhaenon:

04-09-2006 21:39:41 UTC

for

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

05-09-2006 00:51:50 UTC

11/2 time would be a bit scary.

for in anticipation of Conductor benevolence

Thrawn:

05-09-2006 07:21:01 UTC

for

gazebo_dude:

05-09-2006 07:38:52 UTC

imperial not that it matters; but I could go either way.

Thelonious:

05-09-2006 08:02:21 UTC

Hix - I was referring to the per-player proposal limit but ought to have been more explicit.  I’ll add that to my fix-pack.

Elias IX:

05-09-2006 09:16:32 UTC

against

Hix:

05-09-2006 14:38:44 UTC

There is no per-player proposal limit mentioned anywhere—rather, there are restrictions which only apply at the time a new proposal is submitted.

In any case, the “auto-veto” is a big turn-off for me.  It’s just not necessary.  Why should a well-written, important proposal have to be vetoed just because it is over the “limit”?  It’s certainly not breaking anything just by being there.  I will be hoping that the Conductor at least gives good proposals a chance, by overriding eir veto vote.  That’s the other weird thing:  Why force the Conductor to veto when e can just immediately change eir vote to something else? against

Clucky: he/him

05-09-2006 16:01:53 UTC

I’m really an imperial on this one, but because Thelonious posted this one I might as well save time and make my choice for.

Hix:

06-09-2006 16:09:59 UTC

Please don’t make a non-Conductor enact this proposal.  The proposal doesn’t initialize the time signature.  I don’t want to have to deal with “...may submit a proposal ... unless e already has (undefined) proposals pending…”.  I request of Thelonious that e either cause this proposal to fail, or to enact it emself and immediately declare a time signature.