Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Proposal: PPP: Perversity Points Power

Procedurally Vetoed. - lilomar

Adminned at 04 Aug 2010 08:53:01 UTC

Add a new GREEN Rule entitled “Perversity Points Power”:

Any Citizen who has at least one Perversity Point may “use Perversity Power” while writing the phrase “PERVERSITY POINTS POWER” (capitalized) in their EVC and spending one Perversity Point. Then the vote of said Citizens (capitalized) counts three times it counts normally for the purposes of Rules 1.4 and 1.5. So, a vote of FOR means three votes of FOR and a vote of AGAINST means three votes of AGAINST. For easiness, if said Citizen votes DEFERENTIAL, using Perversity Power has no effect.

If said Citizen changed their vote in a Proposal after using Perversity Power in said Proposal, the use of Perversity Power has no effect any more.

The new Rule should be GREEN for three reasons:

1. There is no GREEN rule yet and the Ruleset should look more colorful.
2. I don’t mind the TREASON point, as I will be dead soon anyways.
3. Citizens which higher Clearance have enough power.

Comments

Keba:

03-08-2010 01:30:33 UTC

Well, I could have done sth similar to this Proposal… Generally, I assume it‘s better to have different Perversity advantages for different Clearance Levels. If I had a free slot (wasted both again…) I would propose sth. like this. In the gist of this theme, higher Clearance Levels should have greater advantages.

scshunt:

03-08-2010 02:09:44 UTC

RAR! TREASON!

Bucky:

03-08-2010 02:54:57 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

03-08-2010 05:12:48 UTC

imperial

Wakukee:

03-08-2010 05:53:22 UTC

against  against  against
Please keep in mind that proposals affect more than just dynastic things. Important proposals, like adminning someone or making a core rule change, should not be affected by dynastic rules. Anything that changes voting power is a no-no in my book.

ais523:

03-08-2010 07:47:54 UTC

against Limit it only to proposals that do not change core rules.

Kevan: he/him

03-08-2010 08:42:38 UTC

against

Keba:

03-08-2010 12:27:13 UTC

S/K against I agree it should be restricted to dynastic-rule changes.

lilomar:

04-08-2010 15:52:39 UTC

procedural veto