Thursday, October 08, 2009

Proposal: Core ruleset?

Self-killed. yuri_dragon_17
Forgot to specify -2 points to yuri—arth

Adminned at 08 Oct 2009 22:45:05 UTC

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Careful, Careful” with the following text:

No proposal that alters a Core Rule may pass with less than 2/3 of all player’s votes for the proposal.  If, at any time, such a proposal has received sufficent votes against or abstaining to make this impossible, and is the oldest pending proposal, it may be failed by any admin.

We seem to be panicking about modifying the core rules by accident.  This is a dumb-but-working way to deal with the “problem”



10-08-2009 11:46:50 UTC

I am unclear as to why we’re panicing about changes to the core ruleset. It’s held up rather well over the years. against


10-08-2009 12:50:20 UTC



10-08-2009 13:15:38 UTC

for This dynasty is one in which tinkering with the core rules seems like an interesting option. In that case, safeguards will help to promote a more interesting style of play. (Scamming over at Agora is fun precisely because of all the safeguards that are there to try to stop people doing it; as a result, it’s mostly socially acceptable to scam if you can find a way to get around all of them.)


10-08-2009 14:02:11 UTC



10-08-2009 14:04:45 UTC

for For the Suberian nostalgia.


10-08-2009 14:06:06 UTC



10-08-2009 14:58:03 UTC


Ienpw III:

10-08-2009 14:58:41 UTC



10-08-2009 15:10:08 UTC

against Why? Never needed this, and I don’t see we are in a special circumstance where we have messed so much with core rules that wee need to protect ourselves from that.


10-08-2009 16:07:14 UTC

against , since I intend to do a few core rule tweaks during this dynasty.


10-08-2009 18:03:53 UTC

against as arthexis.


10-08-2009 22:09:26 UTC



10-08-2009 22:36:58 UTC

Bucky: if they’re good tweaks, will they not get a 2/3 majority?  This doesn’t make revisions impossible.


10-08-2009 22:54:37 UTC

I see many problems…

Getting 2/3 will likely never be “impossible”, since changes of vote are commonplace.

I doubt very much whether a pending proposal (as referred to in the second sentence of the proposed rule) will ever alter (present tense, as used in the first sentence of the proposed rule) a Core Rule.  So the second sentence will pretty much never actually have an effect.

I have my reasons for believing that the first sentence of the proposed rule ought not work as you probably intended, but for the sake of making another point, I will suppose that it does prevent certain proposals from becoming Enacted.  In that case, what happens when the oldest pending proposal has 60% FOR votes?  The new rule says it cannot be “passed”, but neither the new rule nor the core rules allow it to be failed.


10-08-2009 23:16:40 UTC

We have always interpreted the voting rule, for the purposes of quorum, to assume that players that have expressed an opinion will continue to express that opinion.  if the language has been tightened up, so be it, but that’s what this says and I’m sticking to it.


10-08-2009 23:29:30 UTC

Currently 7-6 FOR


10-09-2009 00:32:49 UTC

I urge everybody to consider the second scenario exposed by Hix: clearly this can cause a player to get stuck in the queue for ever under some circumstances.

Ienpw III:

10-09-2009 00:45:44 UTC

against CoV per arth and Hix.


10-09-2009 01:39:18 UTC

Fine.  I’m not sure why this is neccessary anyway

against (S-K)