Thursday, July 18, 2019

Proposal: Improved Hiatus [Core] [Special Case] [Appendix]

Fewer than quorum not voting against, failed 1-4 by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Jul 2019 18:56:41 UTC

Remove the following sentence from the rule “Victory and Ascension”:

During this time, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Rules “Wizards”, “Votable Matters”, “Calls for Judgement”, “Gamestate Tracking” and “Victory and Ascension”.

Remove the following sentence from the rule “Seasonal Downtime”:

During this time no game actions may be taken except those described in the rules entitled “Votable Matters,” “Gamestate Tracking” and “Call for Judgement”.

Create a new core rule (as rule 1.8) called “Hiatus”:

Core rules and CfJs may cause the game to periodically enter Hiatus. During Hiatus, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Rules “Wizards”, “Votable Matters”, “Calls for Judgement”, “Gamestate Tracking” and “Victory and Ascension”.

Notwithstanding these limitations, a rule that has caused the game to enter Hiatus may specify the conditions for it to leave Hiatus. If an enacted CfJ specifies that the game leaves Hiatus, the game cannot enter Hiatus again during the 7 days following that CfJ’s enactment.

During Hiatus, the game’s Hiatus status should be prominantly displayed on the blog, such as in the sidebar or in a sticky post.

Dynastic rules cannot overrule this rule, unless they explicitly say they do.

Move the special case rules “Seasonal Downtime” and “Dormancy” to the core rules as subrules of “Hiatus”.

Amend the text of “Dormancy” to read:

If there are fewer than five Wizards, then BlogNomic enters Hiatus.

This consolidates the handful of rules that reference Hiatus, and turns it into a single defined state rather than a set of similar but separately defined states that share one name.



19-07-2019 02:14:21 UTC

I have not been around for a Hiatus or dormancy, so I leave this to the more experienced.

Upon review, however, this doesn’t seem to make major substantive changes to anything but dormancy. In particular, having less than five players would no longer disable proposals, once this has passed.

Kevan: City he/him

19-07-2019 08:40:41 UTC

Good idea generally to try to bring these in line, but:

* I don’t understand the need for the new restrictions (why can’t a dynastic rule trigger Hiatus if it wants to, what’s the 7-day restriction about, why say that a rule can specify conditions for leaving Hiatus when rules can always say anything).
* Allowing DoVs to be made and resolved over Christmas seems risky (although I guess it’s no worse than a CfJ)
* Dormancy currently allows proposals to be resolved, but this would disallow it. I think Dormancy probably benefits from that - we’re trying to get new players to join or unidle at that point, and it’s easier to dive in if the proposal queue is clear.
* Making Dormancy a Core rule is maybe giving it too much authority: it being Special Case implies that it’s optional rather than a hard-and-fast BlogNomic tradition (and we have switched it off before).
* This is a lot of core ruleset bloat.



19-07-2019 09:21:50 UTC

A lot of points I agree with. I missed that the Proposals rule was not included in the list of Hiatus action-rules.

derrick: he/him

19-07-2019 18:34:17 UTC



20-07-2019 01:25:55 UTC