Saturday, November 30, 2019

Proposal: [Core] Sweeping victory

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 02 Dec 2019 13:07:54 UTC

In the rule 1.7 (“Victory and Ascension”), amend the first paragraph as follows:

If an Adventurer (other than the Priest) believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty, they may make a Declaration of Victory (abbreviated “DoV”) detailing this, by posting an entry in the “Declaration of Victory” category.

In the second paragraph, amend the first sentence as follows:

If there is a pending DoV, the game immediately goes into Hiatus (if it is not already in Hiatus).

In the sixth paragraph, amend “When a DoV fails” as “When a DoV is failed”.

In the penultimate paragraph, amend “When a DoV is failed, if it had at least one AGAINST vote” as “If a DoV is failed and it had at least one AGAINST vote” and move the entire sentence to the end of the aforementioned sixth paragraph.

In the rule 1.6 (“Calls for Judgement”), enclose the first mention of “CfJ” (in the first paragraph) in quotation marks.

Patterning the first paragraph on the definitions of Proposals and CfJs, for clarity’s sake and to formally define “DoV”. Removing repetition in the second paragraph. Moving a sentence for structural reasons: first examine what happens when a DoV fails, then what happens when a DoV succeeds (which can be only once per dynasty and always comes last), then what happens after that.

posted by The Duke of Waltham at 30 Nov 2019 15:24:00 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

30-11-2019 15:46:31 UTC

I take note of the fact that the prohibition on Declaring Victory within five days extends into the next dynasty. I don’t know whether it is intentional or not; those with knowledge of past events may be able to enlighten me on that score. (I do realise that another victory so soon is very unlikely, yet the prohibition applies only to those whose previous DoV was contested and failed.)

Madrid:

30-11-2019 18:14:25 UTC

OK. Aside from improving the wording, which I’m OK with (it doesn’t change what I understood its meaning to be), it defines the acronym DoV which I’m surprised I didn’t realize we were missing earlier.

So, OK. This is a for

card:

01-12-2019 00:44:26 UTC

for

TyGuy6:

01-12-2019 02:42:11 UTC

for Although I don’t much care for moving the sentence, as it seems logically distinct from where it went into the sixth paragraph. Paragraphs 6-7 are about results of failed or enacted DoVs, while 8 is about restrictions on when DoVs are allowed to be submitted.

TyGuy6:

01-12-2019 02:42:56 UTC

Eh, it fits in both camps, I suppose.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

01-12-2019 06:52:26 UTC

It does fit on both camps. Perhaps if paragraph 7 were less extensive, the current arrangement would feel less jarring; as it is, I think it demands more of a mental leap while going through the rule in order.

I’m actually considering breaking 7 in half, and joining 8 to the first half, leaving Ascension Addresses separate. (The problem with such a plan is that the Addresses haven’t been introduced yet.)