Monday, October 19, 2009

Proposal: Greater than Maximum Effect[Trivial]

Vetoed by arthexis, because he can; Trivial—arth at Vetoed by arthexis, because he can; Trivial—arth

Adminned at 20 Oct 2009 19:57:24 UTC

Fixed the symbol: vetoes, not failed. —Excalabur

Adminned at 20 Oct 2009 16:19:50 UTC

Repeal Rule 2.1.5

If at least half of all EVCs on this proposal contain the text “Higher Limit”, instead change all instances of “30” in Rule 2.1.5 to “100”.

Either way, if the proposals “Maximum Effect” and “Preventing Infinite Point Scams” are both Enacted, adjust players’ scores to match what they would be if the rule “Speed Limit” were not in effect when “Maximum Effect” was Enacted.

This pair of nearly consecutive proposals was probably an oversight, but it still needs fixing.

Comments

Klisz:

10-19-2009 21:57:12 UTC

for  Higher Limit

ais523:

10-19-2009 22:22:15 UTC

for Higher Limit

Ienpw III:

10-20-2009 00:48:31 UTC

for Higher Limit.

Darknight:

10-20-2009 01:35:50 UTC

for higher limit

Excalabur:

10-20-2009 04:13:16 UTC

imperial

Josh:

10-20-2009 06:04:39 UTC

for Higher Limit

Kevan:

10-20-2009 08:36:06 UTC

for Higher Limit. Although 100 seems too high; we’ve been playing for two weeks and are all still below a hundred.

spikebrennan:

10-20-2009 13:11:23 UTC

for Higher Limit

arthexis:

10-20-2009 14:13:32 UTC

for 100 is too high. With that limit, its the same as if the proposal basically failed, because if someone wins 100 points through a scam, no one will be able to catch up anyways.

Bucky:

10-20-2009 16:03:04 UTC

100 was chosen because it’s also the size of the largest Transfer allowed.

And if someone gains 100 points from a scam, we can always fine them exactly 100 points via proposal.

Oze:

10-20-2009 17:28:51 UTC

for Higher Limit

Qwazukee:

10-20-2009 18:43:30 UTC

for No Limit

Josh:

10-20-2009 19:37:03 UTC

COV against If I can’t have points, no-one will!

arthexis:

10-20-2009 19:41:33 UTC

Hey, I just noticed something fun..

veto VETOED!!!