Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Call for Judgment: Call For Proposal

reached quorum 0-4. Failed by card.

Adminned at 27 Jul 2017 18:11:25 UTC

Change “If a Pactmaker (hereafter referred to as the Victor) believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty, either individually, or collectively with other Pactmakers (hereafter referred to as the co-Victors), then that Pactmaker may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this, and specifying all the co-Victors, if applicable.” to

If a Pactmaker (hereafter referred to as the Victor) who is not the Seraphim believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty, either individually, or collectively with other Pactmakers (hereafter referred to as the co-Victors), then that Pactmaker may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this, and specifying all the co-Victors, if applicable.

posted by card at 26 Jul 2017 06:35:00 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Madrid:

26-07-2017 06:46:33 UTC

Scam revealed, scam plugged, it’s the circle of life. So for

Madrid:

26-07-2017 06:48:53 UTC

But against for Call for Proposal. I don’t mind greenticking it next dynasty though.

Kevan: he/him

26-07-2017 07:01:27 UTC

for Although this will have no effect if the DoV resolves first and redefines Seraph.

Kevan: he/him

26-07-2017 07:04:12 UTC

Although this still leaves open the option for the Emperor to be a co-Victor? Maybe it’s just time to wind this back to the old single-winner version, now that we’ve had two ascensions which weren’t co-victories.

Madrid:

26-07-2017 10:04:01 UTC

I’d like to have at least one dynasty that is dedicated specifically to multi-winners/emperors before making a desicion whether it should stay or not (I almost did but I chose Promises instead)

...If a couple of more dynasties pass and we’re still not using it then, ok, I agree with that it should be removed.

pokes:

26-07-2017 10:22:59 UTC

against It could be submitted as a proposal now that conditionally says to change terms in its text, if appropriate. I wouldn’t veto such a proposal on ascension.

Kevan: he/him

26-07-2017 10:36:22 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] Sure, I’d like to see that too. There’s just no reason for it to be a core rule (particularly a core rule that’s just been shown to have at least one uncaught loophole).

We’ve managed weirder imperial things in the past without needing to update the core.

card:

26-07-2017 15:08:40 UTC

[pokes] I can’t submit proposals until hiatus ends, which is why I made this.
[Kevan] Did you unidle? If you have it’s not been updated in the sidebar.

Kevan: he/him

26-07-2017 15:15:39 UTC

Ah, no, I didn’t, I was going to wait for the DoVs to resolve. Went into voting mode without thinking, there.

Kevan: he/him

27-07-2017 07:55:06 UTC

against Because nobody is the Seraphim any more.

card:

27-07-2017 18:01:22 UTC

against