Proposal: Do we need explicit author votes?
Reached quorum 14 votes to 0 (with 4 DEFs being resolved by Ienpw’s vote). Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 06 May 2010 03:03:41 UTC
In Rule 1.6 entitled “Calls for Judgment” replace “All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).” with:
All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones). If the Voter who made a CfJ has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR.
In Rule 1.9 entitled “Victory and Ascension” replace “Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).” with:
Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons). If the Voter who made a DoV has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR.
minor fix: I do not see why explicit author votes could make sense..
For the records, I added phrases similar to “If the Voter who made a Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR” (Rule 1.4)
OT: Generally, it is not good to use that much redundancy in a Ruleset. Proposals, CjFs and DoVs are related, but divided in totally different Rules. Why? If I find enough time, I will try to fix that.
redtara: they/them
The general argument against these is that players will sometimes post a CFJ or a DOV that they disagree with. But they can’t be self-killed and this happens infrequently enough that it won’t be a problem.