Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Proposal: Insert Veto Icon Here

Self-Killed.  -Bucky

Adminned at 02 Dec 2009 18:03:56 UTC

If the Proposal titled “Veto Express, Now With Absolutely No Scam Whatsoever” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Add the following to Rule 1.5 Enactment:

When the Artisan votes to VETO a Proposal, any Admin may fail that Proposal from that moment on, even if it is not the oldest Pending Proposal.

Remove the bullet point reading:

The Artisan has voted to VETO it

from Rule 1.5 Enactment.

If at least half of all EVCs on this proposal also contain the text “OVERTURN”, replace the text:

The Artisan may vote to VETO any Proposal.

in Rule 1.8 Dynasties with:

The Artisan may vote to VETO any Proposal, unless at least a Quorum of Apprentices have voted FOR it.

I fixed the complaints from the last proposal.



12-01-2009 05:13:08 UTC

against  OVERTURN, even though it’s dumb.


12-01-2009 05:41:18 UTC

imperial OVERTURN


12-01-2009 07:01:06 UTC

The veto power exists so that an emperor has control over their dynasty. Letting it be over turned by a simple majority weakens the emperor’s power. If the emperor is abusing the veto power, the CfJ exists as a means for fixing that, but why prematurely limit the emperor’s fun?


12-01-2009 07:27:42 UTC

I actually concur with Clucky.  against

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-01-2009 07:52:06 UTC

against If I weren’t idle.


12-01-2009 08:04:13 UTC

Oh: major flaw.  This will add the same sentence to the ruleset twice, or no times, depending on how your other proposal turned out.


12-01-2009 11:08:58 UTC

It’s sometimes important for the Emperor to be able to veto an otherwise popular proposal - we occasionally don’t notice that something will break the ruleset until after it’s had a lot of votes, and it can take a while to put the brakes on. CfJs are always an easy way to overturn the edicts of a veto-crazed Emperor.


12-01-2009 11:18:38 UTC

against As it happens, I like the veto rule as it is, end-of-proposal-queue-reolution and all.


12-01-2009 13:28:07 UTC

against per Clucky and Kevan


12-01-2009 15:32:55 UTC

@Wak: It’s an optional thing. You have to include OVERTURN with your EVC for it to take effect.


12-01-2009 16:02:50 UTC

Or, you know, not include OVERTURN, but have four other players include it. If the half-EVC clause is damaging enough that a player doesn’t want it, they won’t want an unknown chance of it either.


12-01-2009 18:27:06 UTC



12-01-2009 19:34:20 UTC



12-01-2009 21:17:17 UTC

for But the rider is really really bad


12-02-2009 09:58:04 UTC

This proposal now does nothing, since the other prop failed.


12-02-2009 16:10:42 UTC

...oh crap, I meant “succeeded”.  against  s/k