Sunday, April 17, 2011

Proposal: Remove “Head of PR”

Fails at 1-13. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 18 Apr 2011 07:37:28 UTC

Remove the current Dynastic Rule 2.1.10, entitled “Head of PR”, due to the following rationale:

The position is superfluous, provides no wage, and is unlikely to be voluntarily accepted by the current active Sheep.
In addition, as it stands, the rule will only serve to add complexity to the game for complexity’s sake, which, as a result, will detract new players from joining.

Comments

Klisz:

17-04-2011 02:29:09 UTC

imperial Note that the rationale usually goes in the flavor text box, though your proposal still works.

Axmann:

17-04-2011 02:41:28 UTC

Changed to flavor text instead of block quote. Did not change any content of proposal in any way.

Travis:

17-04-2011 03:32:29 UTC

against

Travis:

17-04-2011 03:36:37 UTC

“each Sheep who has an Official Position” receives the 2 Baabucks wage, and Head of PR is an Official Position. Besides, some people like graphics design and it’s really not that complex of a rule.

ais523:

17-04-2011 04:05:35 UTC

against They get a wage for it, as do all other Officials.

Also, simplicity for simplicity’s sake is just as bad. People systematically preventing all interesting rules would pretty much make all the games BlogNomic comes up with unplayable. Complexity at least gives scopes for interesting interactions and scams.

Bucky:

17-04-2011 04:23:32 UTC

imperial

Kevan: City he/him

17-04-2011 06:38:49 UTC

“If no Sheep has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.” - this includes shuffling text into flavour text, or adding italics, or anything, however minor. The proposal was fine as it was, and it was illegal to change it.

against

Also, I request permission from the Default Sanitiser to become Head of PR.

Florw:

17-04-2011 06:41:14 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

17-04-2011 07:32:35 UTC

against We only just voted to include this; it would be really unlikely for us to immediately then vote to remove it.

ais523:

17-04-2011 08:11:01 UTC

@Kevan: you have permission. (I think I’d give permission for that to anyone who thought they could do the job.)

Axmann:

17-04-2011 08:52:10 UTC

I didn’t know minor spelling or grammatical changes weren’t allowed after a proposal had been voted on.

Apologies.

Josh: he/they

17-04-2011 08:58:09 UTC

They are, so long as no-one has commented or voted on it.

ais523:

17-04-2011 09:19:23 UTC

After it’s been voted on, though, grammar/spelling errors can be fixed by an admin during enactment (i.e. enacting the proposal as it would be without the typos).

lilomar:

17-04-2011 17:21:05 UTC

against

Roujo: he/him

17-04-2011 18:52:09 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

17-04-2011 22:07:00 UTC

against

Bucky:

18-04-2011 04:38:10 UTC

Stomping this ( veto ).  Then CoV imperial -> against .

Purplebeard:

18-04-2011 11:46:37 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

18-04-2011 14:12:28 UTC

against

WildCard:

18-04-2011 14:13:59 UTC

imperial