Friday, May 05, 2023

Proposal: Let People Go Places

Timed out 2 votes to 6. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 May 2023 21:10:08 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset. Call it “Links” and give it the following text:

A Transit Link has the following information:
* The identities of a pair of cities as its Endpoints.
* A type, which is one of Road, Rail or Ferry, defaulting to Road.
* A Capacity, an integer strictly greater than zero, defaulting to 1.
* A Length, an integer strictly greater than zero, defaulting to 10 if the Endpoints share a Region and 40 otherwise.

A Transit Link is uniquely identified by its Endpoints and Type. All existing Transit Links are publicly tracked. A proposal whose sole effect is to create a single Transit Link is Popular if the created Link’s Capacity is less than the number of FOR votes, it has not been Vetoed or Withdrawn, its length is greater than or equal to the default, and no previous link of the same type exists between its Endpoints.

Comments

summai:

05-05-2023 20:54:51 UTC

Instead of making a proposal to create a transit link that would clog up the queue, why not have something like a review board post from the ‘previous’ dynasty?

Bucky:

05-05-2023 20:55:50 UTC

I’m not ruling out other ways to build a transit link, I’m just reusing the proposal mechanism to get linking started while we figure that out.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-05-2023 21:18:27 UTC

summai, this is your chance to make a Proposal! In this case, propose something similar to the Review Board event. Feel free to copy the text directly and just change the names if you’d like.

In all seriousness, if you’re not feeling comfortable posting a Proposal without first being sure that it’s reasonable, you can always make a blog post that contains your Proposal idea but without setting the Proposal category. That way, it has no actual effect on the game, and you can freely edit it along the way as the discussion carries on.

Josh: he/they

06-05-2023 05:32:22 UTC

This might need another pass. For example, it can create proposals that are simultaneously both popular and unpopular, if the FOR votes exceed the Capacity but the AGAINST votes still meet quorum.

Tepid against , open to changing if a fix hoves into view.

Kevan: he/him

06-05-2023 07:25:52 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

06-05-2023 09:07:43 UTC

against  as per Josh. I could see it potentially being an interesting one though.

summai:

06-05-2023 10:32:29 UTC

[Josh] Won’t the Prioritisation rule from the appendix which says “ If a Core Rule explicitly says it cannot be overruled by a Dynastic Rule, that Core Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, otherwise a Dynastic Rule has precedence over that Core Rule” kick in here?

Josh: he/they

06-05-2023 10:35:01 UTC

No, as neither rule contradicts the other - nothing in the rules says that a proposal *can’t* be both popular and unpopular, so there’s no prioritisation issue to resolve.

summai:

06-05-2023 11:11:02 UTC

Wow, this game is so tricky. I thought that unpopular was just the negation of popular. Completely missed that it is also a technical term that has been defined.  against from me as well then.

redtara: they/them

06-05-2023 11:40:35 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

06-05-2023 15:17:08 UTC

against per the flaws already mentioned

jjm3x3: he/him

06-05-2023 20:52:52 UTC

Love the idea, but for the issues mentioned against