Sunday, January 27, 2013

Proposal: Making My Stuff Make Sense

Vetoed by unanimous consent. -scshunt

Adminned at 27 Jan 2013 17:27:45 UTC

Create a wiki page entitled “Agendas”, linked to in the “Current Game Documents” section of the main wiki page, in accordance with Rule 2.8 (“Agendas”), if it does not already exist.

Change Rule 2.7 (“Sessions”) to read:

The Dynasty has lengths of time called Sessions. The Speaker may call a Session to order by making a post to that effect if a Session is not already in progress. In a Call to Order, the Speaker should make a statement about the duties and responsibilities of Honourable Members. In addition, in a Call to Order, the Speaker shall indicate which Future Agenda (from the “Agendas” wiki page) the Session shall follow, which Agenda is moved to the “Current Agenda” section of the “Agendas” wiki page and can no longer be edited. During a Session, any Proposal submitted which is not an Activity or a Whisper cannot be enacted and its author looses 5 Credibility at the moment that it fails. No Session may end until all Items on its Current Agenda have been resolved, at which point any Honourable Member may make a post of Closing Remarks, which immediately ends (or “Adjourns”) the Session and moves the Current Agenda to the “Past Agenda” section of the “Agendas” wiki page.

Change Rule 2.8 (“Agendas”) to read:

Agendas are named lists of Items tracked in a wiki page entitled “Agendas” which has three main sections: “Current Agenda”, “Future Agendas”, and “Past Agendas”. If no Session is in progress, the “Current Agenda” section is empty. The “Past Agendas” section is purely for archival purposes, so no Agenda in it shall be edited. Only Agendas in the “Future Agendas” can be edited; this is done through Proposals, which can add new Items or edit existing Items to existing Future Agendas or create new Future Agendas, which must be named.

No Proposal shall have a Subject which is the text of an Item of a Future Agenda. When a Session is in progress, a Proposal with a Subject which is the text of an Item of the Current Agenda should be referred to as an Activity. There shall be no more than one Activity corresponding to each Agenda Item. The content of an Activity shall be clearly relevant to its corresponding Agenda Item. When the Activity corresponding to an Item is resolved in the manner typical for Proposals, the Item is considered resolved. When an Agenda Item is resolved, the author of its corresponding Activity is awarded 3 Credibility in addition to any Credibility they otherwise receive from authoring a proposal.

If a rule called “Party Consensus” is in effect, change all occurances of “DIFFERENTIAL” to “DEFERENTIAL” and change “Inversely” to “Conversely”.

Making Sessions significant by constraining Proposals made within them. Credibility gain from Activities is a little higher and compatible with The Party Line. Also fixing my other pending Proposal if it passes.

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

27-01-2013 19:07:30 UTC

for

Patrick:

27-01-2013 19:21:09 UTC

What is a “Whisper”. It’s not defined as far as I can tell.

quirck: he/him

27-01-2013 19:24:22 UTC

I don’t really like restricting proposals. When a Session starts, all proposals that aren’t Activities can’t be enacted even if they were submitted before the start of the session.

As for the “Party Consensus”, what if the author’s Party votes FOR, and the Patry in Power votes AGAINST? Or, what if two Parties in Power have opposite votes? Which should take precedence?

Also, which vote of DEF should be changed? Or I shouldn’t treat “the” as an indication of some certain vote :)

against for now

RaichuKFM: she/her

27-01-2013 19:28:06 UTC

Whispers aren’t defined yet; its probably going to be made soon. And quirck, he’s fixing a proposal he made where he wrote differential instead of deferential.

RaichuKFM: she/her

27-01-2013 19:33:23 UTC

Eh, I’ve decided against the restriction bit: against

Skju:

27-01-2013 21:54:11 UTC

I left Whispers open for someone else to make up. My idea for a Session is an organized, focused time, but didn’t want to restrict them too much and was inspired by the echo myths of the National Statuary Hall.

Hmm. I meant to say that Proposals submitted _during_ a Session had to be Activities or Whispers, but that must have gotten lost in my trying to word it nicely. Perhaps I should have my Proposals peer-reviewed before submitting them. :p

scshunt:

27-01-2013 23:18:52 UTC

“During a Session, any Proposal submitted which is not an Activity or a Whisper cannot be enacted and its author looses 5 Credibility at the moment that it fails.”

This will clog the queue as it doesn’t make such proposals illegal or immediately failable; as a result they may still end up with more for than against, and then we will be forced to wait on the 1-week limit in order to fail them.

I’m also generally concerned that this sort of mechanic will simply stagnate gameplay if used, since by limiting the proposals that can be submitted, minor fixes will either have to be slowly adopted by becoming Agendas or else will have to go through CFJs, and I like it when we aren’t using CFJs to fix our mistakes.

Given that I’d never Call a Session to Order under these rules for these reasons, veto arrow.

Cpt_Koen:

28-01-2013 01:20:24 UTC

imperial  arrow
(Though at this point we should probably just add a rule for fast vetoes…)

Cpt_Koen:

28-01-2013 01:21:29 UTC

against  arrow
(just realized I might actually lose one credibility because of the invalid def…)

Skju:

28-01-2013 01:26:41 UTC

against  arrow