Monday, October 12, 2009

Proposal: Because Arth hasn’t

Timed out 11 votes to 5. Enacted by Kevan. +10 points to Josh.

Adminned at 14 Oct 2009 06:01:11 UTC

Add “Voting” to the list of actions permitted during hiatus, in the second paragraph of rule 1.9.

Rules still cannot be enacted or failed; but there’s no harm in letting people continue to vote on them. Plus it solves the issue of proposal time-out being delayed by hiatus.

Comments

Kevan:

10-12-2009 13:34:36 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-12-2009 14:05:16 UTC

for

Oze:

10-12-2009 14:56:03 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

10-12-2009 15:04:04 UTC

for

Excalabur:

10-12-2009 15:04:25 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

10-12-2009 15:11:43 UTC

Would it be more elegant to state that no Gamestate changes can be made until the pending DoV is resolved?  The idea being that casting a vote (I.e. Posting a comment containing a voting icon) does not change the gamestate in and of itself since the gamestate change resulting threfrom only happens once the proposal is resolved.

spikebrennan:

10-12-2009 15:12:16 UTC

Would it be more elegant to state that no Gamestate changes can be made until the pending DoV is resolved?  The idea being that casting a vote (I.e. Posting a comment containing a voting icon) does not change the gamestate in and of itself since the gamestate change resulting threfrom only happens once the proposal is resolved.

Kevan:

10-12-2009 15:53:48 UTC

No, a player’s vote is itself gamestate - it’s “information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of”. (You alter your vote by posting a comment with a vote icon.)

Bucky:

10-12-2009 16:15:03 UTC

for

Wooble:

10-12-2009 16:39:14 UTC

for

ais523:

10-12-2009 16:45:41 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

10-12-2009 17:05:52 UTC

for

Oranjer:

10-12-2009 20:06:53 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-12-2009 22:39:14 UTC

for

arthexis:

10-13-2009 00:20:40 UTC

for [Trivial]

Qwazukee:

10-13-2009 00:21:40 UTC

against For what it’s worth. Hiatus doesn’t do much if we remove the voting restriction.

Excalabur:

10-13-2009 01:20:41 UTC

One big concern: It’s been traditional for newly elected Emperors to veto a whole raft of newly-irrelevant proposals, but at the end of Hiatus they could all get enacted, endowing a race condtion.  There may also be concerns with the AA, though I think that’s less of a thing. 

Consider a proposal “X wins this dynasty”, which is pending during Hiatus.  If it has a Quorum of FOR votes and times out during hiatus (And is oldest pending, say), then it’s enactment or veto depends on who gets there first.  Under the old system the new emperor almost always had a little while to deal with such things.

against

Ienpw III:

10-13-2009 01:43:37 UTC

CoV against Per Excalabur.

Wakukee:

10-13-2009 01:48:04 UTC

I’d imperial were there a trustworthy emperor, but seeing as there is none and this is a core rule change, I must vote against .

Bucky:

10-13-2009 02:16:59 UTC

@Excalabur: If voting is allowed during Hiatus, then we can also allow actions from Rule 1.8 during Hiatus.  Then the new Leader can veto stuff between the DoV passing and the Ascension Address.

Bucky:

10-13-2009 02:19:12 UTC

Eh, CoV against

Ienpw III:

10-13-2009 06:25:12 UTC

Passing 10-5. 1 Trivial.

Kevan:

10-13-2009 13:22:50 UTC

That a quorum of voters would support both Player A’s DoV and a simultaneous “Player B wins” proposal seems a bit unlikely. (And the problem would still exist if “Player B wins” reached quorum but Player A got their DoV in before anyone could enact it.)

We could get around this by allowing non-Emperor players to cast a vote of VETO without it meaning anything (so that “Proposals the Leader has voted to VETO are considered vetoed.” would kick in as soon as the DoV resolved, and prevent pending pseudo-vetoed proposals from being enacted).

ais523:

10-13-2009 13:47:47 UTC

@Qwaz: Allowing voting during Hiatus isn’t really a problem, especially as proposals can’t pass then. The big reason to Hiatus is to prevent gameplay actions during a DoV.