Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Call for Judgment: Instants and Interrupts

reached a quorum and timed out due to DOV hiatus, final vote 11-1—Yoda

Adminned at 17 Apr 2008 19:32:55 UTC

“Evil Schemes” states that the GL of a proposal’s author increases by 1 if the proposal “fails without being vetoed”, and that the author’s GL is reduced to 0 if the proposal fails “because the Overlord vetoed it”. There’s some space between the two, which Proposal: [Evil] Careful what you say fell into. It was self-killed before it was vetoed, and thus did not fail because it was vetoed, but it also didn’t fail without being vetoed, as the proposal is still pending until it is enacted or failed by an admin.

In order to close this gap, the second sentence of the second paragraph of “Evil Schemes” shall be changed to “If the Overlord votes to VETO an evil proposal, however, this marks it as an excessively clumsy work of evil, and the proposer’s Goatee Length is reduced to 0.” and to help avoid similar gaps in the future, a hierarchy of proposal failure methods shall be established by adding “Proposals the ‘’‘Overlord’‘’ has voted to VETO are considered vetoed. Proposals the author has voted against are considered self-killed unless the ‘’‘Overlord’‘’ 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.” to the end of “Enactment”.

Beane’s GL was 0 prior to the failing of “Proposal: [Evil] Careful what you say”, so eir stats need no adjustment.

Comments

Ornithopter:

16-04-2008 02:34:18 UTC

for
No implied author-fors on CfJs.

This also determines the fate of Yoda’s two “nothing to lose” proposals.

Ornithopter:

16-04-2008 02:46:24 UTC

This ^may^ also determine the fate…

arthexis: he/him

16-04-2008 03:08:46 UTC

for

jay:

16-04-2008 03:21:17 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

16-04-2008 08:41:56 UTC

for

Soyweiser:

16-04-2008 10:12:30 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

16-04-2008 12:00:41 UTC

against Wording seems excessively convoluted to me. Also, not sure it would entirely cover Yoda’s proposals if the overlord vetoed them after the fact.

aaronwinborn:

16-04-2008 12:02:38 UTC

i think it would be cleaner to instead add a dynastic rule saying a henchman may not vote against his own proposal if it’s been vetoed.

dogfish:

16-04-2008 12:16:46 UTC

if i’m correct though, aaronwinborn, that solution wouldn’t solve the problem, which is that the ruleset doesnt state what to do when a proposal is self killed, THEN vetoed

Yoda:

16-04-2008 13:09:11 UTC

Correct, the CfJ closes a discrepancy between which has precedent over the other, s/k or veto.  But I don’t think that the part that amends the core rules is entirely necessary.  imperial

Yoda:

16-04-2008 13:09:51 UTC

We might consider adding it to the glossary instead of the core rules.

dogfish:

16-04-2008 14:07:51 UTC

And I may well be missing something here (?) but is this gap not closed up by the proposal ‘Déjà-vu all over again’? Precedence/order won’t matter since s/k and veto will do the same thing (as long as it passes). I think that’s the better solution anyway….

arthexis: he/him

16-04-2008 15:43:32 UTC

I think the precedence of S/K and VETO should be explained explicitly in the core rules, because this would be a non dynastic issue as it can come up again on the next one.

Yoda:

16-04-2008 16:00:14 UTC

This just clarifies a rule in the core rules; therefore, it should go in the glossary.

This would be a nice supplement to “Deja vu all over again”, though.

Ornithopter:

16-04-2008 16:02:10 UTC

aaronwinborn: Proposals don’t fail until an admin fails them. This makes it so that a proposal is considered vetoed if the Overlord votes to veto it regardless of any other votes on it and the order in which they were placed. I don’t see what’s convoluted about it, but you’re welcome to fix that by proposal if this passes. If a proposal is vetoed after being self-killed, then the Overlord will necessarily have voted VETO, fulfilling the requirements of both amendments.

Yoda: Deferential votes aren’t valid on a CfJ. The core rules amendment isn’t necessary to fixing the immediate problem, no, but if it existed now, the current wording of “Evil Schemes wouldn’t be a problem. It would work just as well in the Glossary. I put it where it made the most sense to me.

dogfish: No, “Déjà-vu all over again” doesn’t close the gap. A self-killed evil proposal does nothing under “Déjà-vu all over again”. A vetoed evil proposal reduces it’s author’s GL to 0. An evil proposal that is self-killed and then vetoed before an admin fails it still falls into the gap between failing “without being vetoed” and failing “because the Overlord vetoed it”.

Everyone: If you’re wondering why I put ‘’‘triple single quotes’‘’ around “Overlord” in the core rule amendment, it’s because that’s the wikicode for bolding, and “Overlord” is always bolded in the core rules.

Purplebeard:

16-04-2008 18:03:32 UTC

for

Yoda:

16-04-2008 19:13:21 UTC

for ok COV

Darknight: he/him

17-04-2008 02:47:52 UTC

for

dogfish:

17-04-2008 11:33:28 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

17-04-2008 16:32:13 UTC

for

jmrdex:

18-04-2008 01:16:49 UTC

for