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.
JonathanDark: he/him
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”