Friday, July 11, 2008

Proposal: Let’s cut the confustion

Timed out. Passes 7-0.—- Clucky

Adminned at 14 Jul 2008 04:56:29 UTC

The current wording of the vote-counting rules forces other rules to use awkward language to force one vote per Adventurer.  Therefore:

Reword Rule 1.4 so that it reads as follows:

Any Adventurer may cast his Vote on a Pending Proposal by making a comment on that entry using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL.

If the Adventurer who made a Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR. If a Adventurer uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Pending Proposal, his Vote is the last voting icon he uses. If a Adventurer leaves the game or goes Idle, his Vote is no longer valid. If a Adventurer votes against his own proposal, that vote may not be changed. This is referred to as a Self-Kill.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Dungeon Master. The vote will count as the same as the Dungeon Master’s vote. The Dungeon Master cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Dungeon Master, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.



07-11-2008 23:47:08 UTC

I’m currently not sure, it’s a change in the core rules which makes me ansty give me a bit of time to think about it.


07-11-2008 23:52:39 UTC

Alright, just so the community can see what I’m thinking about:

The way it reads, to me, is such that the only VOTE that someone can cast is the most recent comment.

What then are previous posts with voting icons?

I’m not saying this is enough to warrent a no vote, or even that it is really actually important, more putting my own thoughts out there to allow everyone to ‘pick the brains’ of people for a Core rule change.

The previous wording was a bit bulky, it’s true, but we KNEW what the wording needed to be previously so I think it warrents extensive discussion on this proposal before we push it through.

Not that it isn’t a good idea Bucky.  It does look like it cleans things up but I wanna talk about it a bit before voting on it, just to make sure.


07-12-2008 01:51:47 UTC



07-12-2008 03:12:51 UTC

Previous posts with voting icons are exactly that: previous posts with voting icons.  I don’t see the issue.


07-12-2008 03:47:42 UTC

I wasn’t sure if there was one, I’m just thinking about stuff out loud :).

I’m not seeing any problems with it, it looks solid.


07-12-2008 09:07:50 UTC

Good call. When did all the his/her stuff come in, though? (Ruleset seems to be using “her” for all players, and this rule is proposing “his”.)


07-12-2008 13:24:14 UTC

for since Kevan seems to agree

As far as the pronouns, I think we need to make some kind of standard.  Perhaps, just make all pronouns male instead of messing with his/her and spivak.  Whatever it is, we need to put it in the glossary so future players can know.


07-12-2008 16:35:36 UTC

The whole point of spivak was that it was standard. And at a point where we had a lot of newer players, everyone rebelled and killed spivak. Now everythings just a confusing mess.

(but for )


07-12-2008 19:05:41 UTC

Someone wanna bring back Spivak then?


07-12-2008 20:55:20 UTC

I don’t know how it used to be set up.  I joined after it had already been taken out.


07-13-2008 02:32:30 UTC



07-13-2008 08:33:44 UTC



07-13-2008 10:53:00 UTC

Spivak’s come and gone a couple of times over the years - I’m generally against it, because it
looks serious and ugly in the ruletext of the more colourfully-written dynasties, because it can intimidate potential new players, and because not everyone can write it properly (there was always a lot of hazarded faux-Spivak, and people confusedly applying it in the wrong contexts as if it was a generic replacement for the word “them”).

I thought we’d replaced it with a singular “they”, the last time it went.