Sunday, May 02, 2010

Proposal: Allowing time for CoVs on DoVs

Timed out 11 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 May 2010 09:41:21 UTC

In Rule 1.9 replace the second bulleted item under “A DoV may be passed if any of the following is true” with:

* It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and has a number of against votes fewer than half of Quorum, rounded down.

This was in my original protosal as an attempt to slow the passing of controversial DoVs in order to allow time for debate and for more players to vote.

posted by Ornithopter at 02 May 2010 17:09:20 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

ais523:

02-05-2010 17:59:27 UTC

Is it even possible to CoV on a DoV? We should probably make it explicit that you can.

Ornithopter:

02-05-2010 18:01:54 UTC

I think it’s one of those things that’s legal because no one ever CfJs it, but you’re right, you aren’t able to according to the rules, and someone should fix it. But not me, because I’m out of proposal slots.

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2010 18:35:19 UTC

for We actually all have three proposal slots this dynasty.

Josh: he/they

02-05-2010 19:22:41 UTC

for

Keba:

02-05-2010 20:41:18 UTC

for, but you are not out of slots (as Kevan stated)

Ornithopter:

02-05-2010 22:00:34 UTC

Oh yeah… Well, I guess I’ll propose that too, then.

@Josh: I’m surprised you’re voting for this, since you removed this text from your version.

redtara: they/them

02-05-2010 23:09:25 UTC

for

SeerPenguin:

03-05-2010 00:41:09 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

03-05-2010 00:46:30 UTC

for

Galdyn:

03-05-2010 01:44:18 UTC

for

digibomber:

04-05-2010 09:38:24 UTC

for

ais523:

04-05-2010 10:55:57 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

04-05-2010 12:39:07 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

04-05-2010 14:01:18 UTC

For what it’s worth, I think CoVs are fine on DoVs - a player is “saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons)”. It’d be clear to say “well, initially I thought FORICON and then I reconsidered and now I’m saying AGAINSTICON” in a single comment, and equally clear to split that explanation over two comments.

Posting icons with no explanation would make it harder to understand, but I think there’s probably enough precedent to read “posting one, then posting the other” as a change of heart with the second one being the one that counts.