Thursday, March 05, 2015

Call for Judgment: Proposal limits

Over 48 hours old and, at 1-9, does not have more FOR votes than AGAINST. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 07 Mar 2015 06:04:40 UTC

Under rule 1.6, I declare that a call for judgement is needed on rule 2.4 entitled “Pace”. The spirit of the pace rule (Rule 2.4) is to add some sort of pacing to the game, having observed the last dyansty (thirteenth of Kevan) I watched as the proposals get voted on in a mere amount of hours and enacted the next day. Under the current ruleset, that process takes a full week to happen and is setting a somewhat slow pace to this dynasty. The changes that are proposed are very conservative.

Should this CfJ pass the following should happen:

Add a new rule under “Pace” named “Proposal Limits” with the following text

No more than 30 proposals shall be active at any time.
Should a proposal exceed this limit, it must be failed by an admin mentioning this rule.

Change the following rule from:

During this dynasty, a Townsperson may submit a Proposal unless the Townsperson already has 4 Proposals pending, or has already made 5 Proposals that day.


During this dynasty, a Townsperson may submit a Proposal unless the Townsperson already has 3 Proposals pending, or has already made 4 Proposals that day.

Add a new rule called “Proposal priorites” contains

If there are more than 25 proposals. The oldest proposal is considered to have priority which shall be noted in the side bar as BOLD red text.
Proposals that have priority ignore rule 2.4 and can be acted upon by any provision set in rule 1.5.2

I have considered removing the pace rule entirely but that would most likely overwhelm the admins, while super quorum is helping a little bit, more needs to be done.



03-05-2015 08:27:00 UTC

against Why a CfJ and not a normal Proposal? This might need attention, but it can still be “repaired” in the normal week a proposal needs and doesn’t need a quick 48h emergency rescue.

Going slow isn’t that bad.


03-05-2015 08:32:44 UTC

for While I’m not 100% this needs to be a CfJ, I quite like the changes.


03-05-2015 08:38:19 UTC

Is it even technically possible to change the sidebar behaviour? It’s not a human that’s updating that thing. (Not to mention, the rule’s missing a word: it probably means oldest pending proposal, not oldest proposal, which was way back in Round One.)


03-05-2015 09:08:28 UTC

against I like how things are right now. If the Admins feel strained to do all the work, I (or someone else) can volunteer to join their lines.


03-05-2015 11:36:16 UTC

I don’t think admin strain is an issue - we’re not seeing more proposals that usual. Self-kills aside (which are easy to process), this dynasty typically allows four proposals per player per week, whereas a regular dynasty allows an average of seven.

against Because this seems like an incentive to post more proposals (if you want something to enact quickly, post more proposals after it), and I don’t like the fact that the 30-max limit means that an individual player could be barred from making proposals simply because the queue was full of other people’s.

Lowering the limit on how many proposals a player can make per day or week seems like a good idea, though.

[ais523] I think EE templating should be clever enough to do something like that.


03-05-2015 14:08:15 UTC

against why is it a CfJ? this isn’t that urgent.

Anyway, I think this is a non-issue per Kevan, and (probably from personal bias) if anything, I want to increase the number of Proposals I can make. Perhaps you can propose the new numbers 3 and 4 for all other players and special exception 5 and 6 for me? Thanks in advance!


03-05-2015 14:21:11 UTC

The main purpose is to call attention to the fact that there are a lot of good proposals that need to be voted upon but that if they are the newest then they are:
1 at the bottom of the queue for a good part of the week and
2 not enough attention is being given to the bottom five proposals.
These are all suggestions on fixing a problem that will only get worse as time goes on and we get more players. So far I have seen a few proposals that help resolve this issue, all of them are good ways. To answer the question of why is a CfJ, this issue needed attention, and there are answers out there right now, so this has fulfilled its primary goal.


03-05-2015 14:26:07 UTC

A bit dramatic….


03-05-2015 15:14:13 UTC



03-05-2015 21:09:48 UTC



03-06-2015 00:17:10 UTC



03-07-2015 02:28:07 UTC

against No reason for CfJ


03-07-2015 03:53:36 UTC

A quorum of villagers have voted against this CfJ, so I kill it