Thursday, December 19, 2019

Proposal: [Core] Abdication paperwork

Timed out 2 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 21 Dec 2019 16:26:09 UTC

Amend rule 1.7 (“Victory and Ascension”) as follows.

Move the second paragraph (beginning “If there is a pending DoV…”) to after the third paragraph.

In the fourth paragraph, in the sentence “A Pending DoV may be Enacted by any Admin if any of the following is true:”, for “is true” substitute “are true”.

Divide the seventh paragraph into two new paragraphs, the first ending “…if they wish.” and the second beginning “The Hiatus continues…”. Between these paragraphs, place the penultimate paragraph (beginning “A DoV may not be started…”).

For the aforementioned first new paragraph—

When a DoV is enacted, all other pending DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Person who made the DoV as its Bookman. That Person may pass this role to another Person at this point by making a post to that effect, if they wish.

substitute—

When a DoV is enacted, all other pending DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins in which the Person who made the DoV becomes the Bookman. If that Person does not wish to retain their new status, they may pass the role of Bookman to another Person by making a post to that effect, provided they haven’t yet made an Ascension Address for the new Dynasty.

In the aforementioned second new paragraph: for “category - this should” substitute “category. This should”; before “may optionally” insert “it”; after “and/or” insert “list”; for “Upon posting such an Ascension Address” substitute “When such an Ascension Address is posted”.

I’ve been planning some textual improvements to this rule, so I might as well propose them now: some have a role facilitating my next proposal, though all stand on their own. (For example, the current third paragraph begins “Every Person may cast Votes on that DoV”, referring directly to the first, so I’d rather have them be adjacent no matter what.)

More important is the rewording of the part on passing along the Imperial crown before the Ascension Address, where the intention of “at this point” seems clear but the wording is not actually very specific.

(The current rule seems to allow only the DoV winner to pass the mantle to someone else, and not that someone else to do the same; I’ve been careful to retain the same apparent restriction in my proposed rewording, but I’d like to know whether it was intentional.)

Comments

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-12-2019 08:20:12 UTC

Actually, the new wording still has a couple of ambiguities… A better version would be this: “If that Person does not wish to retain the role of Bookman, they may pass it to another Person by making a post to that effect, so long as no Ascension Address has been made yet for the new Dynasty.” If commenters like it and this proposal passes, I’ll introduce it in my next proposal.

Kevan: he/him

19-12-2019 16:51:30 UTC

“If that Person does not wish to retain their new status” is useful for context, but feels a little flabby and unnecessary - if I won a dynasty but lost the mantle on an agreed 10% coinflip to someone else, I might still wish that that wasn’t the case…

for

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-12-2019 17:34:05 UTC

Good point. I tried to tighten it a bit in my comment above, but ultimately I agree about the suitability of “wishing”. What about this?

“That Person may pass the role of Bookman to another Person, if they see fit, by making a post to that effect, provided they haven’t yet made an Ascension Address for the new Dynasty.”

(I think the agent of “made an Ascension Address” is clear enough not to require the passive voice, after all.)

Madrid:

19-12-2019 18:10:06 UTC

As food for thought because it’s relevant to Fair Play rules:

Wouldn’t that classify as a Core Rules scam? (Yes, it’s reading the rule as its written, but a good number of scams are precisely that)

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-12-2019 19:59:47 UTC

What exactly would classify as a Core Rules scam?

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

20-12-2019 10:53:30 UTC

I’ve self-killed the previous proposal but, as far as I can tell, this one is not affected.

[Cuddlebeam] If you’re referring to Kevan’s comment, I took it as an illustration of why the wording leaves a bad impression, rather than an example of how it could be scammed.