Thursday, May 25, 2023

Proposal: Quorate

Enacted unanimously, 5-0. Josh

Adminned at 26 May 2023 09:55:53 UTC

Remove the phrase “Exception: Proposals which would change the text of a Core, Special Case or Appendix rule if enacted cannot be Popular on this basis.” from the rule Votes in the Core Rules.



25-05-2023 17:36:42 UTC


JonathanDark: he/him

25-05-2023 17:49:59 UTC


I get Kevan’s arguments against this, but when the set of non-Idle players is this low and thus quorum is this low (in this case 3), his argument that a higher bar is needed to change Core, Special Case, and Appendix rules falls apart.

If we really want a higher bar for those types of rule changes, then making such rule changes should follow a different path, where players who idled from the current dynasty due to boredom or lack of interest could still vote on such matters, as they would probably still be interested in those.

Chiiika: she/her

25-05-2023 18:28:50 UTC

for for reasons above

Kevan: he/him

25-05-2023 19:10:26 UTC

[JonathanDark] That a particular guardrail stops working in some situations doesn’t mean that it would be better to remove it.

Yes, it’s silly and frustrating when an obvious improvement times out 5-0 because it’s the weekend and some people weren’t playing anyway. But it’s potentially much more frustrating when a hotly-contested CoV-heavy core amendment happens to time out at a snapshot 5-4 rather than 4-5, or a dry and largely ignored proposal drifts through at 2-1.

My sense is that BlogNomic has probably been running better under this rule for the last couple of years. That by gently discouraging casual or speculative core proposals which might bog the game down, and also reducing the amount of cleanup needed in subsequent dynasties when players realise something has been broken, it’s given more room to the dynastic game and dynastic proposal queue.


25-05-2023 21:50:03 UTC

Kevan, I have a counteroffer, but it’s obviously more likely to pass after this does.

redtara: they/them

25-05-2023 22:47:13 UTC

for this post is already popularer than the one which enacted the restriction to begin with.

redtara: they/them

25-05-2023 22:51:58 UTC

@Kevan, is it really that much better when a “largely ignored proposal drifts through at” 3-1?

Kevan: he/him

26-05-2023 07:19:33 UTC

Absolutely, yes, I think it would have been better if the original proposal - a niche suggestion that didn’t provoke much discussion at the time, and which is now contentious - had failed and had had to gather wider support before hitting the ruleset.

But it did that, it got a solid, quorate 7-to-2 mandate in a busy dynasty with a full 48 hours of discussion a few months later, when a proposal to repeal the clause failed.