Saturday, August 22, 2009

Proposal: DoV Fixes

Veto of a Self-Kill. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 22 Aug 2009 18:40:36 UTC

arthexis may not post a DoV for 5 days. Change rule 1.9 Victory and Ascension to read:

Any post in the Declaration of Victory category is a Declaration of Victory (DoV). These posts are normally made because a Bill Murray believes they have achieved victory; Bill Murrays should not post a DoV for any other reason. Whenever a DoV is posted, the game immediately goes into Hiatus, if it isn’t already in Hiatus. During Hiatus, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Rules “Bill Murrays”, “Calls for Judgment”, “Gamestate Tracking” and “Victory and Ascension”. The Phil may not post a DoV.
Each Bill Murray may respond to an active DoV by voting FOR or AGAINST it, using the appropriate voting icons.
The Declaration of Victory may be resolved after 24 hours, or after 12 hours if the Phil has voted on it. Upon resolution, if a Weatherteam of Bill Murrays have voted on the DoV and more than half of the counted votes were in favour, then the DoV passes - otherwise the DoV fails. The admin who resolves the DoV must mark his name, and the final tally of votes in the admin field.
When a DoV passes, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Bill Murray who made the DoV as its Phil. (That Bill Murray may pass this role to another Bill Murray at this point, if he wishes.) The Hiatus continues until the new Phil posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the Phil’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and that any keywords will be replaced with new theme-appropriate terms.
A DoV may not be started in the period between a passing DoV and that DoV’s Ascension Address. When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST votes that equal or exceed Weatherteam, the Bill Murray who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their last DoV was failed.
A Declaration of Victory may not also be any other type of Official Post unless the rules concerning that type of Official Post explicitly state otherwise.

 

yuri came to the belief that since arth “obviously did not believe he (had) achieved victory”, it was not legal for him to post a DoV. Wakukee thought that, based on past DoVs, it was not necessery to believe one’s self to have achived victory—that was just explaing what a dov was for. Ais523 said that these problems were caused by a very badly written DoV rule.

Comments

arthexis: he/him

22-08-2009 16:08:33 UTC

for This is so full of loopholes that I will be able to make a DoV that passes this time!

arthexis: he/him

22-08-2009 16:09:45 UTC

Or conversely, this would allow me to make no one able to achieve victory, simply by not believing it!

Klisz:

22-08-2009 16:09:47 UTC

for

Klisz:

22-08-2009 16:34:05 UTC

CoV against  this allows the Phil to make a DoV.

redtara: they/them

22-08-2009 16:40:58 UTC

“The Phil may not post a DoV.”
No, it doesn’t.

Klisz:

22-08-2009 16:44:02 UTC

for  CoV

Qwazukee:

22-08-2009 18:54:52 UTC

against Until I have time to look for, or someone points out, the exact differences between this and the current rule.

Qwazukee:

22-08-2009 19:34:58 UTC

against  against  against

Ok, I may actually Veto this later but there are some serious flaws.

First, the arhtexis thing doesn’t work, as he’s already pointed out. Not sure I liked that punishment anyway, so that’s not a huge deal.

The passive tense second sentence is bad in any English class, and innapropriate for such a core part of our Ruleset. If you read it closely, it never actually says that posting a DoV is a legal action, and makes Rules only governing what to do with a DoV already existing. We wouldn’t be allowed to make DoVs under this.

There are a few other issues (including the fact that this would have to be rewritten for Metadynasties), but those are enough for this to fail.

I appreciate the effort to improve important Rules, though. It is an extremely nuanced thing, though, and generally takes many revisions and rerevisions to change.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2009 19:36:44 UTC

you don’t even fix the rule…

I still want someone to pull a “fails after 12 hours with 5 for votes and zero against votes” for the lols one of these days.

Qwazukee:

22-08-2009 19:40:24 UTC

I thought that was gonna happen on my DoV into this Dynasty. It sounds like the most frustrating kind of loss ever.

Pavitra:

22-08-2009 21:41:30 UTC

against We should take the time to really get this right.

Bucky:

22-08-2009 22:08:53 UTC

against

Wakukee:

22-08-2009 22:38:06 UTC

against I agree with Bucky.

Rodlen:

23-08-2009 00:38:50 UTC

I don’t like this.

Rodlen:

23-08-2009 00:49:02 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

23-08-2009 01:37:36 UTC

against S/K.

Qwazukee:

23-08-2009 01:40:03 UTC

veto