Monday, October 19, 2009

Proposal: First rule of BlogNomic is “You don’t talk about BlogNomic”

Fails 6-5 (-2 to me)—arth

Adminned at 21 Oct 2009 13:11:25 UTC

Create a new rule “Directives”:

Proposals may contain sentences that start with “>>”, which are known as Directives. Inserting a Directive in a Proposal (the Modified Proposal) is an action that can only be taken by it’s author, at the time his or her Modified Proposal is created. Directives may only be inserted as allowed by the sub-rules to this rule.

Each Directive has a name which is written after the “>>” characters, and an effect which is listed in the sub-rule that defines it. The name may contain variables in all caps, which must be defined in the Directive’s effect. The effect of a Directive can affect the way the Modified Proposal is enacted or failed, how its votes are counted, or modify the the points awarded or fined when it ceases to be Pending, etc.

When a Modified Proposal is enacted, all text contained in its directives is ignored by the Admin performing the enactment (unless that Directive’s effect explicitly states otherwise).

Create a new sub-rule “Trivial Tax [3 Points]” to rule “Directives”:

Name: Tax Trivial votes with 1 Point.
Effect: Including the text “Trivial” on a vote to the Modified Proposal is an action that has a fee of 1 Point.

Create a new sub-rule “Ward Proposal [3 Points]”

Name: Proposal warded against PLAYERNAME.
Effect: PLAYERNAME can be the name of any one Player. PLAYERNAME cannot vote on this Proposal (and if he or she does, that vote is not counted). If this directive has been inserted on the same Proposal more than twice, it has no effect instead.

Create a new sub-rule “Self-destruct [3 Points]”

Name: Proposal can be failed on Self-Kill
Effect: If the author of the Modified Proposal votes AGAINST it, any Admin can fail it immediately (even if it’s not the last pending Proposal).

Comments

Klisz:

10-19-2009 21:56:29 UTC

for

ais523:

10-19-2009 22:22:01 UTC

How does warding proposals affect EVCs?

Bucky:

10-19-2009 22:41:33 UTC

for on the main rule,  against on the subrules.

arthexis:

10-19-2009 23:32:24 UTC

@ais: if you cannot vote, you don’t have an EVC

Ienpw III:

10-20-2009 00:49:00 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-20-2009 01:34:48 UTC

for

Rodlen:

10-20-2009 03:53:15 UTC

for

Excalabur:

10-20-2009 04:12:07 UTC

against kinda scared of ‘etc.’.

Kevan:

10-20-2009 08:45:06 UTC

imperial

Josh:

10-20-2009 09:20:23 UTC

against Mainly for the Trivial subrule, which would end up costing the electorate far more than the proposer.

arthexis:

10-20-2009 14:07:28 UTC

@exc: Because directives are rules, they could do anything by definition, so it makes no sense constraining them. You still have to get them into the ruleset first, so it’s not like you can create one without going through the approval process first.

Oze:

10-20-2009 17:28:13 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

10-20-2009 18:40:56 UTC

against