It only comes up once.  You do a quick scan of whether or someone’s rival is the proposer.  If not? No problem.  If so? Said individual is either against or no vote.

however, should evidence arive such that is IS getting out of hand, then I would be fine with repealing the rule.  I just think Yoda is over-reacting.

as amnistar said, its ok right now

But I’m all for readding it at a later point. This just gets Amnistar off my back.

I said this CAN get out of hand very quickly.

Sure, but it’s not.  You’re nixing a rule that allows for fun because of the potential for it to get out of hand.

Seems like I’d wait to see if it did or not.

If its that hard to keep track of you shouldn’t be an admin. It takes five seconds to look in the GNDT on the sidebar and check that guys rival.

CoV

The way I see it, this rule was born out of a small feud between 2 players.  I think it is a bit much to force players to vote against or abstain from a proposal that they would have otherwise voted for (case in point, Amnistar’s vote on the proposal “I thought I proposed this already”).

There is currently no mechanic to change your rival once it is set, so a player cannot change their rival to vote for a proposal by their rival.

Also, this presents another problem: what happens if a player votes for another player’s proposal but later sets their rival to the author of that proposal?  Does that for vote still count as a for vote since the vote was actually cast while the player did not have a rival?  If so, then we would have to dig through the GNDT history to validate votes.

In other words, this rule is just plain unnecessary.

The reason I didn’t veto it before is because I thought it might make a good mechanic, but now I am reconsidering.

People don’t have to have rivals.

“A Adventurer can never vote FOR a proposal authored by their Rival. Any FOR vote on such a proposal (or a vote that would count as a FOR vote) is instead an Abstain.”

If I vote FOR your proposal and then make you my rival, I have cast a vote that counts as FOR and thus is an abstain. seems pretty clear to me.

I still think the rule is unnecessary.

There’s no real rivalry…Clucky and I are, if anything, friends, I just thought it would be a fun mechanic.

“I still think the rule is unnecessary. “

No rule is neccessary.  The question is, is it fun?

Answer: To at least some of us; yes.

If you want it gone, that’s fine, but don’t try and defend your desire to remove the rule because you don’t like it by claiming it is ‘more work for the admins’.

Its not like all of us have a rival right now anyway Yoda. Only 4 of us have set a rival, that leaves 10 of us that you won’t have to worry about. I don’t see how thats gonna make things harder on the admins, given that most of us are admins and we did vote this in to begin with lol

Like I said, even I voted for this to begin with, but now I’m seeing that it is getting annoying.

yoda, honestly, whats so hard about waiting for either another vote or 48 hrs? this rule isn’t causing troube

It’s not even like the proposal we’re waiting on has any effect.  It’s not a gameplay proposal, it is a minor change.

If this were a proposal that would make the ‘game’ start then I could understand the desire to get it passed quickly, but honestly the only effect passing it will do is…nothing because then we’re waiting on this proposal.

I will probably try this again later, but I have just made a proposal that will have no effect if this passes due to the numbering of the rules.

So, for now, it’s time for The Return of the Self Veto!!!

All I ask is that you give Rivals a chance.  If you feel that it is holding up the game and making it not fun, then I will gladly repeal the rule, but I’d like to actually see if it is fun first.

Yay, Self-Vetoes!