Thursday, April 13, 2023

Proposal: Board of Review Board Reviewers

Times out 4-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 16 Apr 2023 16:03:39 UTC

Replace “The Response Format for a Review Board is a comment containing a single voting icon of FOR or AGAINST as defined by the Voting Icons keywords.” in “Review Board” with:-

The Response Format for a Review Board is a comment containing one or more of the following capitalised words: ACQUIT, AUTHORISE, DEMOTE and DISCIPLINE. If an Engineer has made multiple Responses to a Review Board, all but the most recent of their Responses to that Review Board are ignored during its Ending Action.

To the end of the first paragraph of the rule, add:-

The named Engineer is known as the Review Board’s Candidate.

Change the definition of the Ending Action in that rule to:-

The Ending Action for a Review Board is an atomic action with the following steps performed in reference to its Responses, and applied to the Candidate of that Review Board:-
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word DISCIPLINE, decrease the Safety Checks of the Candidate by their Accidents
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word DEMOTE, remove the Candidate’s Specialisation
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word ACQUIT, set the Candidate’s Accidents to zero

Finally, change “24 hours” in that rule to “48 hours”.

I realised after voting on the open Review Board that FOR actually means “punish this player”. Which doesn’t make any difference in this case - Taiga has no Accidents or Specialisation - but maybe Review Boards should be clearer about what is and isn’t being voted on.

And with some active players taking more than 24 hours to respond to proposals, let’s go to a full 48 hour quorum.

Comments

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

13-04-2023 18:55:51 UTC

I don’t like the fact that someone could open a Review Board with the intention to AUTHORISE, and the result could be DISCIPLINE instead.

Would it be acceptable to also change the Creation Conditions to contain a list of the valid responses, so that the creator of the event sets what should be voted on? I think that matches closer with your intent that “Review Boards should be clearer about what is and isn’t being voted on”

Kevan: he/him

13-04-2023 19:13:34 UTC

Well, it’s all quorum; if a quorum of players decide they want to DISCIPLINE someone, they can also just make a regular proposal to do that.

Kevan: he/him

13-04-2023 19:52:00 UTC

[rewritten to clarify that “a Quorum of Responses” was intended to mean - and I think can only be read as - “a number of Responses equal to Quorum”]

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

13-04-2023 20:19:09 UTC

Sure, they could, but not while the current one is open. Order of operations could matter.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

13-04-2023 20:57:38 UTC

Although I suppose if a Quorum of active Engineers is against a particular Review Board event, they’ll just wait it out until one of their number can create their own, so yeah, I see your point.

Brendan: he/him

13-04-2023 23:05:02 UTC

for

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

14-04-2023 13:11:35 UTC

for

Taiga: he/him

16-04-2023 15:35:01 UTC

  for