Sunday, June 17, 2012

Call for Judgment: One victory per win please.

Times out 0-7 and fails. -scshunt

Adminned at 20 Jun 2012 07:51:42 UTC

Amend “Votable Matters” by replacing

Votable Matters can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Votable Matter is first put forward, it is considered Pending.

Whenever an Admin resolves a Votable Matter, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

with

Votable Matters can be either Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Votable Matter is first put forward, it is Pending and should have status ‘Open’. Under certain circumstances specified elsewhere in the rules, a Pending Votable Matter may be Enacted or Failed by any Admin. If a Votable Matter has been Pending for more than a week, it may be Failed by any Admin. No Votable Matter may be resolved unless it is Pending.

When an Admin resolves a Votable Matter, they must mark their name in the ‘Admin’ field of the post, as well as the reason why the Votable Matter qualified to be Enacted or Failed. If the reason depended on vote counts (as opposed to a single vote, as in a self-kill or veto), the Admin must include the vote count. The Admin must change the status of the Votable Matter to ‘Failed’, ‘Enacted’, or (in the case of a vetoed Proposal) ‘Vetoed’, as appropriate. The Admin must then perform any updates to game state that occur as a result of the resolution.

For safety, also, in the rule ‘Victory and Ascension’, replace ‘A DoV may be enacted’ with ‘A Pending DoV may be Enacted’ and replace ‘A DoV may be failed’ with ‘A Pending DoV may be Failed’.

Add an entry to the Glossary defining ‘Status’ as “The ‘Status’ field of a blog post.”

Comments

omd:

17-06-2012 20:39:06 UTC

against because of “The Admin must then perform any updates to game state that occur as a result of the resolution”:

- it could be more platonically worded

- “gamestate”, not “game state”

- BlogNomic defines the ruleset as separate from gamestate, so whatever effect this would have, it wouldn’t apply to ruleset changes

Clucky: he/him

17-06-2012 20:42:29 UTC

against there are easier fixes. also why is this a CfJ?

scshunt:

17-06-2012 20:45:39 UTC

It’s a CFJ because it needs urgent attention and shouldn’t rely on the queue. Also because I may have screwed it up :)

scshunt:

17-06-2012 22:34:32 UTC

against per Clucky

Rodney:

18-06-2012 01:13:33 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

18-06-2012 07:08:19 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

18-06-2012 09:20:56 UTC

against A bit too much redundancy here.

moonroof:

18-06-2012 17:36:07 UTC

against