Proposal: No Gods, No Masters [Core]
Timed out 4 votes to 4. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Apr 2021 16:26:06 UTC
In the rule Votes, change
If a Player other than the Dealer casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Dealer. When the Dealer has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Votable Matter, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Votable Matter are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Dealer’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.
to
If a Player other than the Dealer casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Votable Matter that does not affect the Core Rules or the Appendix, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Dealer. When the Dealer has a valid Vote other than VETO on such a Votable Matter, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Votable Matter are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Dealer’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified. On any Votable Matter that amends or otherwise alters the Core Rules or the Appendix, a vote of DEFERENTIAL is an explicit abstention and counts as neither FOR nor AGAINST for the purposes of determining the Popularity of the Votable Matter.
At the moment, Things Are Still Broken is failing, 3 votes to 3, despite only one player being Against it.
The Emperor having outsize influence on Dynastic rules makes sense, but when it comes to the Core, the Emperor should be just another player. Yes, Kevan is a reliable and experienced player who a newer player should feel comfortable putting their faith into, but when Kevan is against a Proposal and other players of long standing - in this case Brendan, Clucky and myself - are in favour of it then Kevan’s vote by itself really shouldn’t be enough by itself to sink the issue.
Yes, those voting DEF on a proposal presumably know what it means, but the problem with a DEF is that it is the only way of voting on a proposal that disclaims responsibility. There is no explicit abstention mechanic; no deference to a specific non-Emperor player; no deferal to the majority; no deferal to all players who have been around for more than a decade. In the absence of fine-tuned levers, the presence of votes that echo the Emperor’s position shouldn’t be considered an endorsement of it: they are the only way of making a vote that doesn’t require a player to steep themselves in the arcane history of core rule changes and, unless I’m mistaken as to Jumble’s and lemonfanta’s intent, that’s exactly what they mean here.
Meanwhile, the Fair Play prohibition on core scams means that the ruleset is, to a great extent, protected from malicious actors.
The Emperor still has the veto for issues that are irrevocably broken. But on issues where some players want change and some players don’t feel qualified to make a judgment, the Emperor should not have the ability to override the majority.
Kevan: Concierge he/him
A 3-vs-3 tie “against players of long standing” makes that proposal sound more protracted than it is - Clucky’s view is that the upholding clause is a “bit risky [but] probably okay to pass and fix” (which I agree with, except for my “probably” starting from the other end of the dial) and Brendan gave it a silent FOR prior to the upholding mechanic being mentioned, and hasn’t said anything else about it.
This DEF change makes some sense, though, particularly for also handling the opposite situation where a cavalier Emperor can wave a bad Core idea through while veteran players are still mulling it over or even objecting to it.