Sunday, July 09, 2023

Proposal: Manual Brakes

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 2 votes to 6 by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Jul 2023 09:09:47 UTC

In “Brevity”, change the first sentence to the following:

The Great Machine should vote VETO on any Proposal that cannot be edited which would likely add more than 400 characters net to the dynastic ruleset.

Okay, this rule probably has too many corner cases to iron out in a reasonable manner (ex. what if I want to add text if a certain proposal passes/fails?) and is likely prone to user errors that could break a lot of things.  What about replacing it with a not-strictly-enforced suggestion instead?

Comments

Maldor: he/him

09-07-2023 17:48:54 UTC

imperial
Still not entirely sure how brevity would play out, but it probably should change.

SingularByte: he/him

09-07-2023 17:57:29 UTC

for  but this proposal has been accidentally rendered illegal. Maldor’s vote was 17:48, and revision 3’s timestamp was at 17:49.

JonathanDark: he/him

09-07-2023 17:59:07 UTC

@Maldor: please try not to vote on a Proposal until at least 4 hours after it is posted. There’s an edit window during this time where the author can fix issues with their Proposal as long as there is no vote on it yet.

SingularByte: he/him

09-07-2023 17:59:10 UTC

(Unless I’m reading the timestamps wrong. I can’t remember if edit timestamps are in local time or not. I’d probably better check.)

Maldor: he/him

09-07-2023 18:02:32 UTC

That’s my bad, I misinterpreted the proposal listing as anything at the bottom was older than the top

SingularByte: he/him

09-07-2023 18:04:05 UTC

Okay, false alarm. The proposal was edited 4 minutes after creation. Maldor’s vote occurred an hour after creation. It’s just general blognomic timestamp weirdness that confused me.

Josh: he/they

09-07-2023 19:30:31 UTC

against I don’t like this being at the Emperor’s discretion; I don’t think that this solves any edge-case issues and in any case I don’t think those edge case issues matter much (if all else fails the decision on whether or not a proposal adds a compliant or non-compliant number of words to the ruleset can be resolved at the moment of enactment, when it is not ambiguous).

lemon: she/her

09-07-2023 20:12:40 UTC

against everyone else has proven more reliable at counting characters than me anyway, and i’m not sure that this should be a ‘should’.

SingularByte: he/him

09-07-2023 20:31:51 UTC

I think the point is that if it’s a concrete declaration like “this can never be popular”, then it runs the risk of breaking everything if one slips through with too many characters. Everything that’s done with the expectation that the proposal is correct would need to be rolled back.

A “should” means that if one slips through, it doesn’t matter.

lemon: she/her

09-07-2023 20:50:40 UTC

right, but if something does get enacted falsely, it should be easy for us to catch quickly by checking the revision history page and looking for a green (+400) anywhere. i’m making a habit of checking that intermittently, and if a few other folks are too then i’d be very surprised if something actually slipped past for any meaningful amount of time.

Bucky:

09-07-2023 20:57:06 UTC

imperial

Raven1207: he/they

10-07-2023 01:52:23 UTC

against

JonathanDark: he/him

10-07-2023 04:54:05 UTC

against