Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Proposal: If proposals were diseases.

s/k’d and Failed. - lilomar

Adminned at 01 Jul 2010 17:10:49 UTC

If the proposal “Signals of Distress” was Enacted, this proposal does nothing.

Replace the rule entitled “Voting” with the following:

Any @ may cast his Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the official post that comprises that Votable Matter using a Voting Icon of FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal), QUARENTINE (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal), or VETO (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal and the @  is the RNG).

In the case of a Proposal, If the @ who made the Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR. If a @ uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Votable Matter, his Vote is the last Voting Icon he uses. If a @ leaves the game or goes Idle, his Vote is no longer valid. If a @ Votes AGAINST on his own Proposal, that Vote may not be changed. This is referred to as a Self-Kill. If the RNG Votes VETO on a Proposal, that Vote may not be changed.

A Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a Vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the RNG. The Vote will count as the same as the RNG’s Vote. If the RNG casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on that Proposal that was cast by the RNG. If there is no RNG, or the Vote is made by the Proposal’s author on his own Proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier Voting Icons by that Voter on that Proposal.

If the RNG has not Voted on a Proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on that Proposal does not count as a Vote for the purposes of rule 1.5.

Replace the rule entitled “Resolution of Proposals” with the following:

The oldest Pending Proposal may be Enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if either of the following is true:-

  * It has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
  * It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has continuously been a Proposal for that time, it has more than 1 valid Vote, more than half of its Votes are FOR, it has not been vetoed or self-killed, and the RNG’s Vote on it is not QUARANTINE.

The oldest Pending Proposal may be Quarantined if one of the following is true:

  * The RNG’s Vote on it is QUARANTINE, and it could be Enacted if the RNG had Voted FOR.
  * It could be Enacted if all QUARANTINE Votes on it were FOR, but could not be Enacted or Failed otherwise.

The oldest Pending Proposal may be Failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:-

  * It has enough AGAINST Votes that it could not be Enacted or Quarantined without one of those Votes being changed.
  * It has been open for 48 hours and cannot be Quarantined, and could be Failed if all QUARANTINE Votes were AGAINST.
  * It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and has fewer than 2 valid Votes.
  * The @ who proposed it has Voted AGAINST it.
  * The RNG has Voted VETO on it.

Whenever an Admin marks a Proposal, CfJ, or DoV as Enacted or Failed, or a Proposal as Quarantined, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

When a Proposal is Quarantined, instead of having its stated effect upon the ruleset or gamestate it is moved in its entirety to Quarantine, along with a link to the original Proposal post. Proposals in Quarantine have no effect upon the rest of the ruleset or the gamestate until they are moved out of Quarantine by a further Proposal - either by amending and fully Enacting its effects or by removing it from the ruleset. To all intents and purposes, a Quarantined Proposal is considered to have been Enacted. Quarantined Proposals remain open for discussion but Votes cast after the Proposal is resolved are no longer counted or considered to be EVCs.

Proposals the RNG has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed. Proposals the author has Voted against are considered self-killed unless the RNG has Voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to Fail a Proposal before the author’s self-kill Vote is placed. Immediately after Enacting a Proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the Proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the Enacting Admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.

Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of rule 1.1:

Section 4 is the Quarantine, which contains Proposals that have passed but which currently have no effect upon the ruleset.

Amend the following paragraph, from the rule entitled “Victory and Ascension”:

When a DoV is Enacted, all other active DoVs are Failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the @ who made the DoV as its RNG. (That @ may pass this role to another @ at this point, if he wishes.) The Hiatus continues until the new RNG posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the RNG’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and/or that the words @ and RNG will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset.

as follows:

When a DoV is Enacted, all other active DoVs are Failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the @ who made the DoV as its RNG. (That @ may pass this role to another @ at this point, if he wishes.) The Hiatus continues until the new RNG posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the RNG’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and/or that the words @ and RNG will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or that any or all of the Proposals in Quarantine are removed.

If the Voting Icons and statuses are gamestate:
Add a new Voting Icon, which corresponds to the string :QTINE:. Add a new status for resolved Proposals, called Quarantined, which remains open for commenting after Enactment.

Edited version of Josh’s proposal. The “and the following are gamestate” is implicit, I believe, but I did not want to accidentally make them gamestate. If icons and statuses of Proposals are not gamestate, they should still be created.

Comments

Bucky:

30-06-2010 06:25:37 UTC

against mainly because I think the quarantine procedure is way too complex for what it does.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-06-2010 08:45:34 UTC

for Bucky: it really doesn’t seem that complex.

Kevan: he/him

30-06-2010 11:12:21 UTC

It does seem like a lot of work simply to end up with “here is a list of some proposals that failed recently, but which some people (maybe a quorum, maybe not) liked the idea of”, which we could already do outside of the ruleset.

“Proposals in Quarantine have no effect upon the rest of the ruleset or the gamestate until they are moved out of Quarantine by a further Proposal” scares me a bit, as this could be read (particularly alongside “To all intents and purposes, a Quarantined Proposal is considered to have been Enacted.”) as simply delaying their proposed effect until the moment they leave Quarantine.

In fact, I’d rather we explicitly said that the Quarantine section of the page didn’t count as part of the Ruleset in any way at all. Saying that Quarantine proposals “currently have no effect upon the ruleset” (while explicitly being part of the Ruleset, rather than merely Gamestate) seems like a rather flimsy length of hazard tape.

Galdyn:

30-06-2010 14:48:17 UTC

for

lilomar:

30-06-2010 15:00:11 UTC

RE: (maybe a quorum, maybe not)
It’s not necessarily a quorum, but it is enough to enact the proposal.

As the the issue with whether or not Quarantined Proposals have an effect once removed. Yes, that is unclear. But I would much rather propose a fix instead of re-doing all of this prop again. If someone else would like a shot at it, feel free though. The trickiest part is making sure that all proposals can eventually be enacted, quarantined, or failed, but not more than one, so if someone does re-propose, I would suggest copying that part of this proposal, as I am pretty sure it has been debugged now.

Kevan: he/him

30-06-2010 15:56:44 UTC

Actually, is “It could be Enacted if all QUARANTINE Votes on it were FOR, but could not be Enacted or Failed otherwise.” correct? If the oldest pending proposal has 8 FOR and 1 AGA, then it’s on course to enact when it times out, but if the AGA voter switches to QTINE, then the proposal can be quarantined immediately instead. That seems a little odd.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-06-2010 16:00:48 UTC

@Kevan - how entertainingly unscrupulous.

I still think that this should pass, but it will need a bug-fix.

lilomar:

30-06-2010 16:03:04 UTC

hm, you are right, in that case, the best thing to do would be to make that only happen after 48 hours have passed, that way, the “could not be enacted ... otherwise” clause kicks in.

scshunt:

30-06-2010 18:11:53 UTC

:QTINE:

Darknight: he/him

30-06-2010 22:12:56 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

01-07-2010 05:16:18 UTC

To elaborate on my earlier comment, I think the benefit this provides to the game is very small.  Meanwhile, it bulks up the rules for adminning proposals, to the point where it isn’t obvious how it works to a new player reading through it quickly.  Its effect is a net negaitve.

Kevan: he/him

01-07-2010 08:12:33 UTC

Agreed, it makes the enactment rule unnecessarily convoluted, and unclear to new players. Could we maybe cut quarantining down to a single standalone paragraph, instead of sprinkling it through the core mechanics? (“Any player may use the QUARANTINE icon alongside an AGAINST vote; if more than half of the EVCs on a failed proposal include QUARANTINE icons, that proposal’s title and text are noted in Section 4, which does not count as part of the ruleset.”)

lilomar:

01-07-2010 13:02:36 UTC

against per bucky and kevan.

Will possibly try to re-propose a trimmed down version.

Qwazukee:

01-07-2010 17:22:46 UTC

against