Thursday, July 13, 2017

Proposal: [Core] [Appendix] Changes With Backwards Compatability

Self-killed, failed by card.

Adminned at 14 Jul 2017 15:36:29 UTC

Replace “If an Pactmaker other than the Seraphims casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Seraphims. When a quorum of Seraphims has the same valid Vote other than VETO, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Votable Matter are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Vote of the quorum of Seraphims with the same valid Vote.” with

A Pactmaker other than the Seraphims can make a Vote of PREFERENTIAL in the form of :X: where X is a name of a Pactmaker or “quorum”. When a Pactmaker has a valid vote other than VETO, all PREFERENTIAL votes on that Proposal with the name of that Pactmaker are the same as that Pactmaker’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified. A PREFERENTIAL vote of :quorum: on a given Proposal are considered to be valid and the same vote as the quorum of either FOR or AGAINST votes of the Seraphims.

Replace “an IMP shall represent a Vote of DEFERENTIAL,” with

an IMP shall represent a Vote of :quorum:.

Just a note for when I have more time:
Replace all instances of “an Pactmaker” with “a Pactmaker”



07-13-2017 08:48:20 UTC

against This introduces a lot of fiddliness (players can no longer see at a glance how a proposal is doing, admins will find it harder to total votes) and only seems to give us a mechanic that encourages people to pay less attention to voting.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

07-13-2017 09:57:33 UTC



07-13-2017 23:25:48 UTC

against I don’t think this would be used often enough (other than DEF, which we already have.) Maybe as a dynastic rule so we can try it out and clear it at the end by default?


07-14-2017 00:21:51 UTC

Re: the note, I think it’s an obvious enough error that I changed them all.


07-14-2017 12:46:59 UTC

“an IMP shall represent a Vote of :quorum:”
Mana-eater Imps represent votes of :quorum:??
against although I like it in principle, because of Kevan and Pokes’ arguments.


07-14-2017 15:36:02 UTC

[Cpt_Koen] I guess whoever wrote that keyword definition didn’t want to write out the entirety of the word IMPERIAL