Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Proposal: General (but Critical) Enhancements

Passes 14 - 0; +10 arthexis—arth

Adminned at 15 Oct 2009 11:03:50 UTC

Add the following text to last line of rule “Investments”:

An Admin cannot enact a Proposal for which he or she is an investor, unless there are no other non-idle Admins who might be able to enact it.

Change the fee of rule “More Weekly Please” to 50 Points.

On rule “Ruleset Theft” after the text that reads “Theft Proposals submitted according to this rule can be legally submitted even if the submitter already has 2 proposals Pending”, add the following:

(conversely, this also means that if a Player has 2 Proposals pending, and one of them is a Theft Proposal, they can still create 1 additional proposal)

On rule “Rule Changes are Secured (Blue)” replace the sentence that reads “(d) The alteration of a rule’s clearance.” with:

(d) The alteration of that rule’s fee or sponsor.

 

I rolled several important enhancements into a single proposal so it’s not so trivial.

Comments

Darknight:

10-14-2009 09:52:22 UTC

for

Josh:

10-14-2009 14:03:40 UTC

for

ais523:

10-14-2009 14:06:08 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

10-14-2009 14:10:13 UTC

for

Oranjer:

10-14-2009 14:34:57 UTC

for

Wooble:

10-14-2009 14:49:32 UTC

for

Kevan:

10-14-2009 14:50:26 UTC

for

Oze:

10-14-2009 15:08:13 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-14-2009 16:51:40 UTC

for Trivial

Bucky:

10-14-2009 16:52:06 UTC

Err, I mean for Investing

Qwazukee:

10-14-2009 17:52:06 UTC

imperial

arthexis:

10-14-2009 19:56:30 UTC

@bucky: didn’t rule investments fail?

Ienpw III:

10-14-2009 19:57:12 UTC

for

Wakukee:

10-14-2009 21:54:06 UTC

Hmm…  for ?

Excalabur:

10-15-2009 14:56:22 UTC

imperial Note troubles revolving around adding a line of rules to a rule that doesn’t exist.

arthexis:

10-15-2009 17:59:48 UTC

Nothing happens, then.