Thursday, January 24, 2013

Proposal: In these hallowed halls…

Self-killed. -scshunt

Adminned at 24 Jan 2013 14:59:56 UTC

Amend rule 1.4.2 (“Resolution of Proposals”) to read:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (by updating the Ruleset and/or Gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal, and then setting that Proposal’s status to Enacted) 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.

The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:
It has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 24 hours and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.
It has been Self-Killed.

In addition, Amend rule 1.4 (“Proposals”) to read:

Any Honourable Member may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Honourable Member already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day, or 7 or more Proposals over all members are pending).

Finally, change rule 1.4.1 (“Special Proposal Voting”), where it says “The Speaker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal; “

to read:

The Speaker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal as long as they have not used VETO on another current pending Proposal.

If we’re going to be messing with rules and proposals, here is an idea.  Through this, a ‘team’ of people could filibuster the Parliament, putting it at a dead stop unit they get what they want.  Maybe not great for Nomic, but an interesting idea and potential dynamic nonetheless.  Also, to solidify this, limiting the power of the Speaker.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

24-01-2013 04:56:08 UTC

dont actually change the rules, just use a dynastic rule to overwrite it against

nqeron:

24-01-2013 05:00:01 UTC

true—good point.  In theory all ‘rules’ can be reset, but you’re right.  Still - I’d be interested in hearing other’s thoughts regarding the idea.  against

ais523:

24-01-2013 05:03:25 UTC

I think an explicit part of the dynastic theme is that the core rules aren’t to be touched until afterwards (but can be overridden at will).

scshunt:

24-01-2013 06:22:11 UTC

It’s more for protection than that I don’t want the core to be touched. But yeah, overriding > amending

Josh: he/him

24-01-2013 08:01:22 UTC

“It has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 24 hours and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.” That means all those conditions have to be in place before a proposal can be failed, including not having been vetoed or selfied?

A filibuster really needs a higher wall to climb than just meeting quorum, but otherwise I like the idea.

Murphy:

24-01-2013 15:08:12 UTC

against

In addition to overriding instead of amending, the filibuster should require some sort of ongoing actions by the players wanting to keep voting open.