Sunday, October 23, 2011

Proposal: A New Era

Enacted 18-6-3 - Amnistar

Adminned at 25 Oct 2011 13:22:03 UTC

Amend Rule 1.3 by replacing

Each Dynasty is headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.

with

Each Dynasty may be headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.  If there is no Critic, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

Repeal all dynastic rules. Begin a new Metadynasty. Throughout the ruleset, replace ‘Artist’ with ‘Player’ and ‘Critic’ with ‘Emperor’.

I think we can decide whether to do a meta separately from the theme.

Comments

Josh:

10-23-2011 16:24:09 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

10-23-2011 16:27:34 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-23-2011 16:32:00 UTC

for on defining metadynasties,  against  on starting one

flurie:

10-23-2011 16:33:46 UTC

for

Bucky, you seem like one of the very few intent on salvaging this dynasty. Do you plan on entering a counter-proposal, or are you expecting this to pass and just voicing your dissent?

Ienpw III:

10-23-2011 16:34:08 UTC

for

Pavitra:

10-23-2011 16:35:19 UTC

against lumping in starting one together with the definition, for on balance.

zuff:

10-23-2011 16:36:22 UTC

for

flurie:

10-23-2011 16:38:48 UTC

Oh, whoops, I totally missed Bucky’s proposal.

southpointingchariot:

10-23-2011 16:41:00 UTC

for

scshunt:

10-23-2011 16:41:34 UTC

If this fails I’ll re-propose the definition separately.

Prince Anduril:

10-23-2011 16:51:37 UTC

I’m now not really sure about what I think about ending the dynasty. So I’m going to abstain for now.

Amnistar:

10-23-2011 16:53:10 UTC

against On the grounds that they should be seperate proposals.

Ornithopter:

10-23-2011 16:54:23 UTC

imperial

Ely:

10-23-2011 17:25:26 UTC

imperial

monqy:

10-23-2011 17:52:57 UTC

for

Roujo:

10-23-2011 18:13:09 UTC

for On both counts.

Clucky:

10-23-2011 18:24:26 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

10-23-2011 20:25:47 UTC

for in the sense that we should define what a metadynasty is in a bot more detail;  against starting one right now, though.  A bit of a change of heart, but still.

ais523:

10-23-2011 21:10:49 UTC

for When the metadynasty rule was repealed, it was on the basis that it was confusing to newbies (?) and could easily be added back again if a Metadynasty was wanted. So adding one back in and starting it at the same time is the correct thing to do.

Pavitra:

10-23-2011 21:13:23 UTC

In that case, I retract my meh-itude and enthusiastically RoV for .

Sgeo:

10-23-2011 21:13:30 UTC

Personally, I think I’d be more confused looking at the current ruleset and not being able to determine from that, what these “Metadynasties” I see are.

Soviet Brendon:

10-23-2011 21:20:03 UTC

against

omd:

10-23-2011 22:08:49 UTC

for

Didn’t I already propose that amendment?

scshunt:

10-23-2011 22:11:30 UTC

Yes. The ratification killed it.

Kevan:

10-23-2011 22:48:08 UTC

[ais523] As I remember it, the problem with the historical metadynasty rule (I forget if it was enacted or just proposed) was that it banged on for a full paragraph explaining how DEFs would resolve and how other rules treated the absence of an Emperor, which was a lot of weight to give to something that only happened once every couple of years. All those other rules have since been written to work around a missing Emperor, though, so we only need one sentence now, which seems plenty.

Kevan:

10-23-2011 22:48:17 UTC

for

arthexis:

10-23-2011 23:01:29 UTC

for Will this be valid once I am unidled? Or would I have to vote again?

scshunt:

10-23-2011 23:12:11 UTC

The latter

Wooble:

10-23-2011 23:33:21 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-24-2011 03:14:43 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

10-24-2011 03:40:44 UTC

I’ll CoV to DEF if our Critic unidles.

arthexis:

10-24-2011 04:36:48 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

10-24-2011 05:45:30 UTC

against

Ely:

10-24-2011 14:34:00 UTC

If the Critic idles, any Dynasty becomes a Meta.
against

Ely:

10-24-2011 14:34:25 UTC

And that was a CoV from DEF, btw

scshunt:

10-24-2011 14:38:27 UTC

I don’t think that’s a real bug. Why would it be improper to say that we are presently in what is technically a metadynasty? Long-standing precedent is to name the dynasties after the first Critic anyways, but there’s no reason a dynasty can’t transform into a metadynasty rather than become a dynasty of another Critic.

Kevan:

10-24-2011 14:45:12 UTC

[Ely] The “Dynasties” rule is specifically exempt from idle Players not counting as Players. The Emperor remains the Emperor while he is idle.

Ely:

10-24-2011 14:52:02 UTC

whoops. Back to my non-vote then.  imperial

Brendan:

10-24-2011 16:09:14 UTC

for

Clucky:

10-24-2011 17:55:44 UTC

for

Wakukee:

10-24-2011 23:55:50 UTC

against I’ve always been a fan of a possible multi-emperor dynasty.

Ely:

10-25-2011 13:36:00 UTC

[Wakukee]
We would need more players than what we had until now. If we manage to keep the number high I’d vote for, there’s a load of cool mechanics in true winning-together factions/teams. Having 3 emperors out of 8 players seems a waste.

Rodney:

10-25-2011 17:59:22 UTC

for