Thursday, June 16, 2011

Proposal: Core Rule: Landlord power cleanup

s/k’ed.—Yoda

Adminned at 18 Jun 2011 12:45:43 UTC

In the Core Rule “Voting”,

replace

Any Farmer may cast their Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the official post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal), or VETO (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal and the Farmer is the Landlord).

with

Any Farmer may cast their Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the official post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL (only if the Votable Matter is a Dynastic Proposal), or VETO (only if the Votable Matter is a Dynastic Proposal and the Farmer is the Landlord).

In the Core Rule “Dynasties,” change

The Landlord may Vote to VETO any Proposal.

to

The Landlord may Vote to VETO any Dynastic Proposal.

I seem to recall Yoda advising a player that a vote of DEFERENTIAL is not intended for core rule proposals.  I agree.

Comments

Darknight: he/him

17-06-2011 01:24:12 UTC

imperial

aguydude:

17-06-2011 01:52:27 UTC

:::Sigh:::

Yoda:

17-06-2011 02:47:00 UTC

against This could be exploited so that a proposal that makes some very minor change to the core ruleset but leaves the rest intact (or ambiguously might change the core rules in that it’s a ruleset-wide change) cannot be vetoed.  I was actually thinking about this a couple of weeks ago and had the idea of restricting votes on core proposals.  The difference would be that a proposal can be neither a core nor a dynastic proposal, but it can’t be both, so a proposal that is neither would still fall under the jurisdiction of this rule whereas my idea would limit it to only core proposals.

aguydude:

17-06-2011 02:50:28 UTC

Yoda: It would be simpler just to replace all the places where I said “dynastic proposal” with “Proposal, but not a core proposal.”

aguydude:

17-06-2011 02:53:03 UTC

Yoda: Oh, that’s what you said.  I guess I’m tired.

Yoda:

17-06-2011 02:58:49 UTC

aguydude: Yes, that is what I said.  It’s ok, we all have those days…

Galtori:

17-06-2011 03:07:02 UTC

Hmmm. I know what I want to vote, but I don’t want to seem antagonistic. . . .
imperial
Sorry kiddo.

aguydude:

17-06-2011 03:09:26 UTC

against s/k, per Yoda’s point.

Bucky:

17-06-2011 19:03:40 UTC

In my opinion, the ability of the Landlord to veto core proposals is a vital safety feature.

redtara: they/them

17-06-2011 21:50:30 UTC

Idle against, per Bucky.

Deferentials aren’t always used as faith in the Emperor’s decision - they’re often faith in an experienced player’s decision. Most players have played for at least three or four dynasties before they win one. Many have played for longer. Emperors usually have a fair idea of the implications of a certain proposal.

aguydude:

17-06-2011 23:04:04 UTC

Ienpw: I agree with your points, Ienpw.  However, usually a good chunk of the voters involved are experienced players anyhow, so specifically picking the one who won the last dynasty seems a bit unfair.  Further, I think a lot of new players also tend to consider Deferential to be a way of declining to vote.

t strikes me as a bit weird to allow the Landlord to veto a core proposal, though one could always bypass the Landlord via CfJ if he was going Veto crazy or something.  Though that seems unlikely to happen.

Yoda:

18-06-2011 03:01:42 UTC

You never know, I might get that mad king anthony twinge…

Doctor29:

18-06-2011 18:25:52 UTC

against