Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Proposal: Light up the Scoreboard

Times out and passes 4-2. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 17:54:36 UTC

Rename the rule “Official Positions” to “[OFF] Official Positions”.

Append the following as a new paragraph at the end of the rule now named “[OFF] Official Positions”:

If a Scribe ever has 2 or more Official Positions at the same time, that Scribe Scores.

Rename the rule “Vanity” to “[VAN] Vanity”.

Append the following as a new paragraph at the end of the rule now named “[VAN] Vanity”:

When the Editor makes a weekly report, they must declare which Scribe has the highest Looks. If the same Scribe is named this way in 2 consecutive weekly reports, that Scribe Scores.

To be clear, each of these should only be scoreable once. If I’m reading it right, the following text, quoted from the rule Grading, should enforce that: “has a code for which no rule having that code has caused that Scribe to Score earlier in the current dynasty”.



19-07-2016 16:20:52 UTC

Note: “A Scribe may be granted an Official Position” implies that Scribes can only have one at a time.  The GNDT only supports a single Official Position as well.


19-07-2016 16:33:08 UTC

Note: I personally would argue that wording isn’t strong enough to mean people couldn’t have 2 positions. I could be “granted an official position” on 2 separate instances and therefore have 2 positions. It would probably be best to add a sentence like “a scribe may hold 2 or more different positions simultaneously but may not have more than 1 instance of the same position” just to clarify the issue though.

The gndt would just have to be changed to a text field rather than a drop box.


19-07-2016 19:13:05 UTC


Clucky: he/him

19-07-2016 21:44:11 UTC



19-07-2016 21:47:29 UTC


RaichuKFM: she/her

19-07-2016 21:59:00 UTC



19-07-2016 22:56:51 UTC

CoV against for queue-stalling purposes (I expect to reassess this later)

Brendan: he/him

20-07-2016 16:55:20 UTC



20-07-2016 18:33:45 UTC

Still in queue-stalling mode, but this time for the CfJ.

Clucky: he/him

20-07-2016 18:36:29 UTC

against if its broken we should fix it via proposal

Clucky: he/him

20-07-2016 18:40:39 UTC

nevermind I think I understand what happened here for