Friday, April 25, 2008

Proposal: Overruling a Veto, Take 2

Times out 8-1.
-Ornithopter

Adminned at 27 Apr 2008 07:59:32 UTC

Rewrite the rule “Enactment” (1.5) to read as follows:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if any of the following is true:-

*It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
*It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.
*The Overlord has voted to VETO it, it has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Supermajority, and has been open for voting for at least 12 hours.  (This is called “overruling a VETO”.)
The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:-

*It has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed.
*It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and half or fewer of its votes are FOR.
*It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and has fewer than 2 valid votes.
*The Henchman who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.
*The Overlord has voted to VETO it, it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, and the number of FOR votes is less than Supermajority.
Whenever an Admin marks a proposal as enacted or failed, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of votes (or the fact that the proposal was self-killed or vetoed).

Proposals the Overlord has voted to VETO are considered vetoed unless they have been overruled. Proposals the author has voted against are considered self-killed unless they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill vote is placed.

Add a glossary entry under the title “Keywords” (3.3) with the following text:

*Supermajority is equal to two-thirds the number of Henchmen, rounded down, plus one.

 

Comments

Kevan: he/him

25-04-2008 13:11:48 UTC

against One major benefit of a trusted veto holder is that an otherwise popular proposal can be killed off if we realise, too late, that it’s broken.

arthexis: he/him

25-04-2008 13:50:17 UTC

imperial

Oze:

25-04-2008 15:35:00 UTC

imperial

aaronwinborn:

25-04-2008 15:46:11 UTC

against Although I disagree with Kevan—the Overlord may not necessarily be a ‘trusted’ veto holder, e is just someone who happened to win the last dynasty.

However, I see no reason to allow a veto to be overridden—a CfJ can be used if Henchman feel an Overlord is abusing their power of Veto.

Ornithopter:

25-04-2008 15:50:05 UTC

against
CfJs are unvetoable, if overruling the Overlord becomes truly necessary, otherwise, let em have eir fun!

Kevan: he/him

25-04-2008 15:57:40 UTC

Well, they’re trusted to do what’s good for the game, at least, having no vested interest in winning the dynasty, and usually wanting it to be an enjoyable one.

This might be an interesting mechanic for a single dynasty, but it shouldn’t be in the core ruleset.

spikebrennan:

25-04-2008 18:20:53 UTC

against per Kevan

Purplebeard:

26-04-2008 18:26:27 UTC

against I am strangely tempted to veto this.

Yoda:

26-04-2008 19:01:28 UTC

That would be strangely ironic.

Beane:

26-04-2008 21:28:04 UTC

imperial