Monday, February 19, 2007

Proposal: Nothingness

S-K.—Chronos

Adminned at 21 Feb 2007 07:25:39 UTC

In rule 1.5 Enactment, add to the buleted list under “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:”:

* It would do no changes to the Ruleset or Gamestate if enacted.

I intend with this to allow Admins to fail Proposals contingent on conditions that are already false.

Comments

Hix: Idle

19-02-2007 20:00:43 UTC

against Don’t want it to be this way.  Also, poorly worded, since the enacting of any proposal always changes the Gamestate (e.g. the proposal is no longer Pending).

Amnistar: he/himIdle

19-02-2007 20:33:55 UTC

Right…he wants to be able to kill those proposals that are “If _______ passes, this does nothing”

spikebrennan: Idle

19-02-2007 20:44:27 UTC

Do you intend for it to be possible to fail a conditional proposal whose conditions have failed even if it is not at the top of the queue?

Amnistar: he/himIdle

19-02-2007 20:57:23 UTC

well, since we’ve currently got a conditional proposal sitting at the top of the qeue, with failed conditions.  His point is to allow such proposals to be failed even if they have time left.

Josh: he/they

19-02-2007 22:32:13 UTC

against

Amnistar: he/himIdle

19-02-2007 23:35:10 UTC

for Because it’s a way to clear out proposals on the end of the queue.  And if these proposals should alread y be cleared out…well…then we need to get on that.

Tiberias: Idle

19-02-2007 23:38:45 UTC

for

Doodle: Idle

20-02-2007 01:02:41 UTC

against if the author of a proposal chooses to make such a conditional proposal, let said author suffer any consequences.

Tiberias: Idle

20-02-2007 01:43:14 UTC

Spike: As it gets added to the list of ways the oldest pending proposal can be failed, I would say not.

Doodle: What consequences would those be?  I agree with your sentiment, but don’t see any.

Doodle: Idle

20-02-2007 03:27:06 UTC

Tiberias: I was referring to each player’s proposal limit. Obviously not a particularly harsh consequence, but still a limitation on their actions.

Amnistar: he/himIdle

20-02-2007 04:06:48 UTC

But what about those proposals that could be passed but are waiting for later proposals to be passed?  This keeps our queue less full of proposals that no longer have to be waiting.

Tiberias: Idle

20-02-2007 05:33:01 UTC

Also, if they are able to be online, they can self-kill such proposals to get the same effect as this proposal.  It’s simply a matter of keeping the queue moving.

ChronosPhaenon: Idle

20-02-2007 12:05:37 UTC

Hix: That change (the proposal ceasing to be pending) is result of rule 1.5, not of the Proposal itself.

Spike: No. It says explicitly “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed(...)”

Doodle: The only consequence being addresse dhere isa a fronzen queue. It’s not intendend to benefit slopy writers. Ut’s intended to benefit the whole game, removing useless Proposals from the top of the queue.

Josh: Could you comment your vote, please?

Josh: he/they

20-02-2007 12:10:41 UTC

If I had had a comment to make with my vote then I would have made it.

Rodney: Idle

20-02-2007 14:22:35 UTC

against

snowballinhell7001: Idle

20-02-2007 20:32:54 UTC

To easy to manipulate… against

Edometheus: Idle

20-02-2007 20:34:19 UTC

for
If it does nothing, then why should e keep it on the proposals list? This merely slows down the game.

ChronosPhaenon: Idle

20-02-2007 21:58:23 UTC

Snow, can you give an example, please, so I can try to rework a substitute?

viewtyjoe: Idle

21-02-2007 01:01:31 UTC

against

Bucky: Idle

21-02-2007 05:29:37 UTC

From the bench,
against  against  against 

If it becomes a problem, the Emperor equivalent can simply VETO it.

ChronosPhaenon: Idle

21-02-2007 11:44:16 UTC

For the record, Bucky’s vote should not be counted, for he is idle, as is the current Emperor equivalent.

ChronosPhaenon: Idle

21-02-2007 15:25:09 UTC

against S-K. Will try another take.