reasonable, I’d it

We’re not PerlNomic. Plus, the system we use encourages people to make well-thought-out proposals, instead of just throwing stuff out there.

Definite
You could wait until 47 hours have passed, amend, then get a friend to vote on it and it passes with only two votes. If you edited it to ‘SingularByte wins this dynasty’, then it would be an easy way to win.

@SingularByte: that’s why there’s an 8-hour limit for amendment. @Qwazukee: I agree that that’s meant to be the intent, but there have been a lot of buggy proposals recently, so it seems not to be working. (In fact, I thought of stealing the rule in an attempt to deal with the buggy proposals we’ve been seeing recently.)

nope, because you have to amend within 8 hours of the proposal. “but only if it has existed for less than 8 hours, “

Also, it woulod require the majority of people to have voted amend on the proposal.

This does nothing to discourage a well thought out proposal, but it does allow a proposal with a single flaw to be quickly fixed if someone has voted on it.

Ah. I didn’t see the 8 hours part. Then I’m neutral to it.

I’m unless someone can point out a gamebreaker on it.  We’ve tried this in the past, but it just got messy, this seems like a not too messy way of doing it.

Does PerlNomic have built-in revision histories? Having to reread the whole proposal to check that no loopholes have been snuck in sounds a bit tiresome, if this happens a lot (and I imagine it will, if there’s less pressure to get things right in the first draft).

We’d also need some system for alerting players that an old proposal has been amended and may need their vote again. An “[AMENDED]” suffix to the subject line would be enough, I suppose.

This rule is so poorly suited to this game. . . .

What if there are 3 amend votes to 2 against votes? If someone votes against while the proposal is being amended, what happens?

It would involve a lot of revoting, as well. I don’t think it necessary.

@Kevan: no, it doesn’t. And players generally do re-read afterwards. Amending a lot is quite rare, if people frequently do buggy proposals they’re likely to get AGAINSTed. It’s also very rare for PerlNomicites to vote FOR a proposal that should be amended. @Qwazukee: I don’t think the revoting would necessarily be much of a problem (rules in PerlNomic nearly always either have no AMENDs or are unanimous AMEND, unless a bug’s spotted late on); the vote-while-editing thing is an interesting problem, though. Maybe the proposer should have to comment to say they’re amending /before/ they do the amendment, and that’s the “official timestamp”?

I think the sensible way to do this, if I liked it, would be for a proposal with more “amend” votes to be adminned as “amend,” allowing a new proposal for the creator at no cost. That way, the new proposal would have the same timeframe as any other proposal, and revoting would not be an issue.

But I still don’t think it’s a necessary / good thing for BlogNomic.

How much gain for the amount of admin it requires?

When a proposal is amended, the timestamp should be updated so it is as if they have posted a new proposal in the queue.

That way, it will pop to the top with [AMENDED] in the title, so it’s very obvious to everyone; and, more importantly, the timer will reset so everyone has a chance to vote properly on the amended proposal.

Also, amended proposals should potentially be restricted to once per day and once per proposal, or something.

(That last line should have read, “Also, amending proposals…”)

Hmm… I think I probably won’t propose this. An early s/k plus veto seems to be a better solution for somewhere like BlogNomic; that rather depends on the General’s personality, though.

think out your proposals before you post them, i think, is the best solution.