Thursday, March 22, 2012

Proposal: Fast Track II

Times out and passes, 7-6 ~ southpointingchariot

Adminned at 24 Mar 2012 14:57:54 UTC

If there is no rule named “Fast Track”, this proposal does nothing.

Append to rule “Fast Track”:

If a pending Dynastic Proposal has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum and that same Proposal also has a number of EVC’s with the expression “FAST TRACK”, in all caps, that exceed or equal Quorum, then any Admin may enact tha Proposal, even if it is not the oldest pending Proposal.

Notice that it’s not a majority of the EVC’s, but a Quorum of EVC’s.


Josh: HE/HIM

03-22-2012 17:50:41 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

03-22-2012 18:18:36 UTC

for Not really sure when voters would be expected to use this, and I’m a little uncomfortable for the tangle this could get the queue into (if we fast-track something without realising that it would overwrite a rule that an older proposal was innocently amending), but it’s an interesting idea.

Clucky: HE/HIM

03-22-2012 18:24:25 UTC


Proposals can be written to conditionally deal with currently pending proposals, but they can’t be written to conditionally deal with proposals that haven’t been written yet. Not to mention a conditional proposal could itself get fast tracked and get passed before the proposal that its waiting on…

If you *really* need to change something before the proposal queue clears use a CfJ.

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-22-2012 18:28:07 UTC

[Clucky] It only messes up if a quorum of players agree to mess it up, though. I don’t know how much we should trust ourselves.

Clucky: HE/HIM

03-22-2012 18:41:59 UTC

Right, thats my part of my point though, if you have enough people willing to do this you have enough people willing to push a CfJ through. It just seems redundant.


03-22-2012 21:36:58 UTC



03-22-2012 21:37:59 UTC

CoV imperial

Sorry for the quick change, I guess I’m not really leaning too far one way or the other.


03-22-2012 22:45:43 UTC

against I don’t really have an opinion about fast veto, or fast self-kill, or whatever fast failing, but I believe it’s important that successful proposals are enacted with respect to the queue.


03-22-2012 23:12:14 UTC



03-23-2012 02:25:44 UTC

against , partly because out-of-order enactment is hard to verify.


03-23-2012 02:52:52 UTC



03-23-2012 04:23:16 UTC

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-23-2012 07:51:15 UTC

[Clucky] Except that we would frown on people using CfJs for trivial game purposes.


03-23-2012 22:44:19 UTC

CoV against


03-24-2012 16:12:02 UTC


Soviet Brendon:

03-24-2012 18:58:31 UTC



03-24-2012 20:58:05 UTC