Saturday, April 09, 2011

Proposal: If we’re going to make a change, let’s make it radical

Times out and fails 1-4 - coppro

Adminned at 11 Apr 2011 13:55:53 UTC

In rule 1.5, change all instances of the phrase “The oldest pending Proposal” to “Any pending Proposal”.

Change the first paragraph and bulleted list in that rule to read as follows:

Any pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if the following is true:-

* The proposal does not contain the phrase “This proposal is contingent on [x]”, where [x] is the title of another pending proposal; and it either
* 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; or
* 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, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

Enacting proposals in order is a bit of an anachronism when we have the tracking bar to the right. In practical terms it does very little to slow the game down, as the enactment of proposals is more often a function of when admins actually turn their attention to those proposals rather than a function of the rate at which they reach quorum.

This does have several advantages, though - it means that players no longer have to have their votes dictated by the impulse to expedite the processing of the queue, it means that controversial proposals can be lingered over while less important (or more clear-cut) proposals can continue to be processed, and it means that urgent problems can be fixed urgently.

It is, of course, possible to create contingency loops, where two proposals are contingent upon each other and thus neither can be passed; but it has to be done deliberately on both sides, so can’t be done as a hostile move, and both will time out naturally and be failed, so I don’t see it as a huge problem.

Comments

lilomar:

04-09-2011 08:15:11 UTC

against
Not sure if this is an actual suggestion or an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, regardless, I like the queue structure, and don’t see any reason to do away with it.

Subrincinator:

04-09-2011 09:18:51 UTC

imperial Hm.  Why not?

Kevan:

04-09-2011 09:45:34 UTC

Erg, this is very bold and interesting, but I think we’re going to end up in a mess when proposals overlap each other. It already happens occasionally in a simple queue when people forget to consider what the ruleset would look like after all the earlier proposals have passed (I made the mistake myself last week), and I really don’t like the idea of a perfectly good proposal failing because a later proposal accidentally screwed up the rule it was trying to amend.

against

Florw:

04-09-2011 17:34:27 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

04-09-2011 19:12:11 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

04-09-2011 20:52:47 UTC

against

ais523:

04-11-2011 20:50:44 UTC

(core proposal, thus I’m not including it in the new dynasty veto spree)