Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Proposal: Apologies to Ornithopter

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 29 Apr 2010 02:19:42 UTC

Remove the paragraph beginning “The Declaration of Victory may be resolved” from Rule 1.9.

Add the following before the paragraph in Rule 1.9 beginning “When a DoV passes”:

A DoV passes if any of the following is true:

* It has been open for voting for 12 hours, has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and either the Emperor has voted FOR it or it has no AGAINST votes.
* It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, at least Quorum Colonists have voted on it, and more than half of its votes are FOR.

A DoV fails if any of the following are true:

* It has been open for voting for 12 hours, has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, at least Quorum Colonists have voted on it, and more than half of its votes are AGAINST.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and cannot be legally passed.

When a DoV fails and there are no pending DoVs, Hiatus ends.

Stealing someone else’s proposal seems like bad form but if we’re going to get it passed before the end of the dynasty it should really go up now.

A few changes to Ornithopter’s original post: accelerated passage can now be dependent on the Emperor’s assent, rather than just the fact of him having voted; accellerated failure is reliant on antiquorum; DoVs automatically fail after 48 hours if met with resounding apathy.

Comments

Purplebeard:

28-04-2010 13:43:55 UTC

for

dbdougla:

28-04-2010 14:27:32 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

28-04-2010 14:49:23 UTC

for Better than the current rule, but I’m not sure about the asymmetry of the 24-hour clauses, and it still seems like a lot of ruleset bloat for a very rare and simple thing.

Klisz:

28-04-2010 14:50:48 UTC

imperial

Josh: he/they

28-04-2010 15:08:16 UTC

@Kevan - the asymmetry was deliberate. In a situation of doubt, I’d be happier if the ruleset preferred failing the DoV to passing it.

ais523:

28-04-2010 15:08:17 UTC

against Rather bad bug here: DoV failing and passing becomes platonic, that is a DoV passes or fails itself as soon as the conditions are met, rather than when it’s adminned. This seems not only rather unusual for BlogNomic, but rather hard to keep track of. Apart from that, though, I like this.

Klisz:

28-04-2010 15:12:55 UTC

CoV against  per ais523.

Josh: he/they

28-04-2010 15:14:12 UTC

Good point. s/k against