It’s only been adminnable for eight minutes, so I’m not sure “nobody wants to admin it” is a strong thesis. I’ll do it now.

oh I didn’t see the time I just saw posts in discord pushing to vote on it and that it was expired.

point still remains that people clearly wanted that CfJ to pass.

That CfJ would not be affected by the specified clause as that clause only targets proposals.

@clucky but the text ur proposing to remove is specifically about proposals and not CfJs

Oh I saw the ping in discord so assumed otherwise. I thought I also recalled another CfJ having the same problems but it might have been a proposal

It’s still an annoying rule

i think its okay if this ruletext is a lil annoying. its a preventative measure, the annoyance and the benefit it provides r one and the same!!

what does it actually prevent though? Seems like the only thing it prevents is doing something the players of the game want to do. Which is a silly thing to prevent.

—something less than half of the players of the game want to do. One thing it prevents is, eg, a core rules change timing out and passing with only two votes on it because the other twelve players were busy over the weekend.

do we have examples of this actually preventing that? cause i know e did have some examples of a proposal getting 5-6 for votes and no against votes but still failing simply because there were a ton of players and most of them weren’t active

I don’t really get the reasoning behind “after 48 hours, six people voted for this, and one person voted against it” sometimes being good enough to change the core rules and sometimes not being good enough to change the core rules.

I think the latter paragraph is a solid point, but it is not itself enough to convince me to change my vote on this. I think in general the mode of thinking this rule intends to encourage is “core changes that aren’t urgent can wait for reproposal once quorum ebbs; core changes that are urgent can still be CfJed.” And for the time being, I accept that.

When this change was proposed in August I looked back over the previous few months to see what passed previously but would have failed under this, and it seemed okay to me. Brendan makes a good point about genuinely urgent core issues being CfJs instead, which this clause doesn’t apply to.

I don’t recall examples of core proposals timing out popular-ish but failing, since this came in. Have there been any regrettable ones?

Most recent example was https://blognomic.com/archive/act_five_special_case where a proposal failed 7-0.

Honestly, core rules are a bit too opaque for me to have a good grasp of how exactly they affect things or form a solid opinion. On the one hand, I’m sure that scams could pose a threat if this were removed, but on the other hand, it can legitimately get in the way.

[Supernova] Scams aren’t too much of a concern because Fair Play discourages core victory scams. The main fallout from a core change being made without much agreement or scrutiny is that the game will break in some way, often in a later dynasty where contemporary players have to interrupt their game to repair someone else’s mistake.

Actually, checking the most recent case of that, where the definition of “rule” was glitched back in August and nobody realised until Josh spotted it last week, the proposal to change it timed out with less than quorum and should have failed, but was incorrectly enacted instead.