Friday, June 04, 2010

Proposal: Procedural vetos

Quorumed, 12-2 -Darth

Adminned at 04 Jun 2010 15:30:29 UTC

After the second bulleted list in rule 1.5, add the following paragraph:

If the RNG’s most recent Vote is VETO, and that EVC includes the word “Procedural”, the vetoed proposal can be failed immediately by any admin, even if it is not the oldest pending proposal.

Comments

Narya:

04-06-2010 01:35:51 UTC

imperial Support conditional on the RNG. Fixed the not-apparently-a-typo.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 01:44:22 UTC

for

Bucky:

04-06-2010 02:14:15 UTC

imperial

Aquafraternally Yours:

04-06-2010 02:29:40 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

04-06-2010 02:31:18 UTC

for An excellent idea

Qwazukee:

04-06-2010 02:50:21 UTC

for I still think all vetos should be adminned immediately.

spikebrennan:

04-06-2010 02:54:48 UTC

for
I take the opposite position as Qwaz, but this sounds like a reasonable compromise

lilomar:

04-06-2010 02:55:45 UTC

for

Darknight: HE/HIM

04-06-2010 02:58:55 UTC

for

Wooble:

04-06-2010 14:57:52 UTC

for

Put:

04-06-2010 15:48:36 UTC

for Sounds fair enough.

Tiberias:

04-06-2010 19:01:32 UTC

against

h2g2guy:

04-06-2010 19:31:36 UTC

against

I don’t know, I just get the feeling that the core rules were made the way they were for a good reason.  I don’t see the exploit here, but I fear this sort of a change.

Plus, the VETO, in my opinion, shouldn’t be used enough to justify this rule, anyway.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 19:41:49 UTC

h2g2guy, the core rules used to make all vetoes the same way “procedurals” are here; there has been a long series of arguments regarding whether or not to keep the so-called fast veto. It was, of course, eventually removed.

“The usual reason stated not to do this is “why would we want to punish bad proposals by taking away slots, but rewarding terrible proposals by freeing up the slot immediately”? Well, I was around last time this rule was in place, and things didn’t happen that way; if a proposal is terrible, it’ll just get a load of AGAINST votes. The only times that vetos are needed are when proposals are reasonable enough to get a preponderance of FOR votes, but either a fatal flaw’s discovered last-minute (in which case the queue timing change is basically irrelevant), or the proposal doesn’t fit into the [Emperor]’s idea of the dynasty (this only comes up in dynasties like arth’s most recent, where the theme is secret; in such a case, punishing people for bad theme-guessing seems wrong). However, with such a rule in place, the veto gains another use: the [Emperor] (who can be assumed to be relatively fair, due to having no way to win) can return slots to players for the good of the dynasty (e.g. when a player is having lots of ideas towards the start, and needs feedback on them, but other players don’t like them protosing). This was used quite a bit in several of the dynasties where the “fast veto” was available, including [ais523’s] first.”
  —ais523, in the flavor text of a proposal to return the fast veto

Hix:

04-06-2010 20:00:54 UTC

Note:  Narya’s deferential vote cancels the implied for vote from the proposal’s author; it is an explicit vote of abstention, rather than a vote of faith in the RNG’s decision.

lilomar:

04-06-2010 20:02:48 UTC

oo, and she just went idle, so she won’t be able to fix it…

ais523:

04-06-2010 20:17:55 UTC

for Anyone who’s been studying the history of this sort of proposal could have predicted my vote in advance.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 20:23:43 UTC

Note that alethioscript is broken on this one, due to Hix’s note. We need one more FOR in order for this to reach Quorum.

Jumblin McGrumblin:

04-06-2010 22:28:19 UTC

imperial