Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Proposal: [MIC] Changing the terms of the treaty


Adminned at 01 Jan 2009 18:48:33 UTC

WHEREAS the terms of a treaty may need to be changed quickly;
WHEREAS it is not up to regular citizens how the treaty works;
THEREFORE the Vizier of Issues may change the treaty.

Add a sub rule of rule 5 Diplomacy - Amendments

At any time the Vizier of Issues or the Stylist (referred to as diplomats) may create a post with a title prefixed by [Treaty]. In this post they may write an unlimited number of potential amendments (with a minimum of one), each of them numbered, starting at one. If the diplomat belonging to the other faction posts a comment which contains the words “I agree with amendment X” where X is the number of a potential amendment, that potential amendment becomes an unenacted amendment. After either 72 hours have passed since the creation of the post or if both diplomats make a comment containing “End the negotiations”, whichever comes first, all unenacted amendments are added to the list of Current Amendments (sub rule 5.3) of both factions. Amendments function like normal rules. All potential amendments then stop being potential amendments.

Add a sub rule of rule 5 Diplomacy - Current Amendments

If the chairman posts a comment to this proposal which contains the text “The Chairman’s word is law”, replace all instances of “Vizier of Issues” with “Chairman”.
Obviously this has no effect unless BLO also makes this rule. And can someone fix the “Whereas; Whereas; Therefore.” part of the diplomacy rule?


arthexis: he/him

31-12-2008 16:01:21 UTC

against  I believe this is quite gamebreaking. It makes it possible for a faction to easily take over another one.

Amnistar: he/him

31-12-2008 21:32:24 UTC

against without peer review of rule changes we end up in awful situations of confusion, or instant winning.  It’s not a pretty thing.


31-12-2008 22:18:46 UTC

against Per the Chairman

SingularByte: he/him

31-12-2008 22:29:12 UTC

Everyone has made good points. Self kill against  Also can someone please make the whereas clauses above the therefore clause in the diplomacy rule? It looks weird having those ones horizontal but the others vertical. Since it’s a typographical error, I doubt it needs a proposal.