Monday, February 23, 2015

Proposal: Long Year Patch

Passes 12-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 28 Feb 2015 00:57:02 UTC

Change the rule Pace to read:

Where contradictory, this rule supersedes any provision set out in rule 1.5.

During this dynasty, Proposals can only be resolved on a Saturday or Sunday, unless one of the following is true, in which case it can be resolved at any time regardless of whether it is the oldest pending Proposal:

  • It has been open for at least 24 hours, every Townsperson has voted upon it, all of the votes are FOR, and it is not contingent on the passage of another pending proposal;
  • It has been open for at least 24 hours, every Townsperson has voted upon it, and all of the votes are Against;
  • It has been vetoed or self-killed.
  • It is limited in effect to a specific Season or Seasons not including the current Season, and it is the oldest pending Proposal.

During this dynasty, a Townsperson may submit a Proposal unless the Townsperson already has 4 Proposals pending, or has already made 5 Proposals that day.

A proposal may be pending for longer than 7 days. If a proposal somehow ends up being pending on 2 or more consecutive Sundays, it is ignored for the purpose of calculating the oldest pending proposal, and can be failed by any Admin.

Comments

Kevan: City he/him

23-02-2015 20:36:22 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

23-02-2015 21:04:06 UTC

for

Maldor: he/him

23-02-2015 21:28:57 UTC

for

Maldor: he/him

23-02-2015 21:29:00 UTC

for

Sylphrena:

23-02-2015 23:03:59 UTC

for

Ely:

24-02-2015 00:20:31 UTC

“this rule supersedes any provision set out in rule 1.5”
ninja
Back when I left, referring to rules by number was frowned upon, since rule numbers were not defined by the ruleset. Has it been fixed?

(it shouldn’t be a big issue since Dynastic rules have still precedence over Core)
/ninja

Teninten:

24-02-2015 00:32:44 UTC

for

Bucky:

24-02-2015 00:46:30 UTC

Rule numbers show up in the table of contents, so it should still work.

_Fox_:

24-02-2015 02:39:28 UTC

for

ais523:

24-02-2015 10:06:12 UTC

I think what Ely is referring to is the scam I and an admin friend pulled in the Eight Dynasty of Kevan, where we added a new rule to the start of the dynastic rules to throw off the numbering and thus cause a proposal to amend the wrong rule. (Before then, there’d long been a rule that said you can’t refer to rules by number specifically to stop that scam happening, but it had been repealed because people couldn’t see why it was necessary.)

Nowadays, the numbering can only be thrown off if a rule is outright repealed. This happens sufficiently rarely (except in the middle of a dynasty) that people tend to get complacent and use rule numbers (although I’m still careful to use names, just to make sure).

Ely:

24-02-2015 10:20:23 UTC

Yep, that was the one.
Well, game on then. :)

Dresdom:

24-02-2015 10:24:18 UTC

for

ais523:

24-02-2015 13:23:08 UTC

Err, I meant sufficiently rarely (except between dynasties), and the reason is that there’s a new rule that forces rules to be added in proper sequence.

Brendan: he/him

24-02-2015 19:45:43 UTC

for

ayesdeeef:

26-02-2015 01:26:27 UTC

for

mideg:

27-02-2015 09:31:35 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

27-02-2015 15:39:48 UTC

for