Friday, February 19, 2021

Proposal: NVT

Vetoed. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2021 15:13:26 UTC

Add a new treaty titled “No Vetos” with the text:

Signatories to this Treaty may not cast a VETO vote on a Proposal.

Comments

Bucky:

19-02-2021 18:56:08 UTC

against

Bucky:

19-02-2021 19:04:21 UTC

The dynasty is still relying on vetoes to enforce Sovereignty.

Brendan: HE/HIM

19-02-2021 20:55:06 UTC

Pretty unreal to see this coming from someone who voted against much less abusable versions of the same thing when I proposed them.

Raven1207: HE/HIM

19-02-2021 22:34:55 UTC

against

pokes:

19-02-2021 22:41:45 UTC

Emperor Brendan, I really don’t know what proposals of yours you’re referring to.

Brendan: HE/HIM

19-02-2021 22:59:07 UTC

My eyes aren’t what they used to be, but I’m pretty sure I see AGAINST icons under your name under
https://blognomic.com/archive/subversion_escalation_special_case#comments and
https://blognomic.com/archive/subversion_escalation_take_two_special_case#comments—am I mistaken?

This proposal just flat-out removes the veto option entirely for the remainder of the dynasty, with no attempt made to account for the contradiction that another rule specifies what the Player should veto. No allowances for ticking-time-bomb “what if someone destroys blognomic forever” scenarios that people stampeded about in the above comments, either. I’m just mildly flabbergasted, and curious about what changed your mind.

pokes:

20-02-2021 00:41:15 UTC

Thanks, I searched the February archives but not January. You are not mistaken, I did indeed vote against those proposals. I can’t recall exactly why, but it was likely in some part that I don’t think a new special case rule is needed for it.

I didn’t then buy and don’t buy now the ticking time bomb hypothetical, because we’ve had nine veto-less metadynasties without exploding. It’s also irrelevant, because “the people stampeding about it” was Kevan, who’s now idle. I don’t mind the contradiction with the rule specifying what the Player should veto because I don’t think that ‘should’ in ordinary circumstances has any teeth (except a bit in Fair Play), and certainly none if explicitly overruled by a rule with teeth.

What I really want more than this to reduce Bucky’s overpowered voting is MVGA. Unfortunately I made the mistake of giving it a title that has a faint odor of unpleasant memories.

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

21-02-2021 14:55:13 UTC

veto