Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Proposal: Fast Veto

Vetoed ~ southpointingchariot

Adminned at 21 Mar 2012 19:50:01 UTC

Append to the rule “Resolution of Proposals” text:

Any pending proposal may be failed immediately by any Admin if the Net has voted VETO on it and the word ‘fast’ was in the EVC containing that vote.

Though eternally controversial, I believe the fast veto will allow for quicker and smoother gameplay. Part of a series of planned reforms to avoid loops, pick up the pace, and address ambiguities.

Comments

Patrick:

20-03-2012 01:22:42 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

20-03-2012 01:37:53 UTC

against I don’t like it as a core rule.

omd:

20-03-2012 03:26:47 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

20-03-2012 06:06:34 UTC

against

Doctor29:

20-03-2012 06:22:12 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2012 07:48:33 UTC

against No.

Aside from anything else, when an issue has been raised this many times it feels bad-natured to keep throwing it up and hoping for a different result.

scshunt:

20-03-2012 11:18:22 UTC

imperial

Patrick:

20-03-2012 11:43:25 UTC

@Josh: Out of curiosity, would you have the same problem if this were proposed as a dynastic rule?

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2012 12:11:37 UTC

Me? No, I hate the fast veto and would happily see it never mentioned or referred to again :D

Purplebeard:

20-03-2012 12:43:36 UTC

Hear, hear.

Klisz:

20-03-2012 17:54:53 UTC

for

Soviet Brendon:

20-03-2012 19:14:08 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

21-03-2012 10:24:55 UTC

against Given that this is a fast/slow toggle that not every dynasty wants, it’d seem better as a dynastic rule in the style of Emperor-is-not-a-Player.

southpointingchariot:

22-03-2012 02:48:55 UTC

veto