Thursday, July 14, 2016

Proposal: Respect for History

Self-killed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 15 Jul 2016 00:18:40 UTC

I Prepose a new rule, called Historical Rules.

If a rule is older than eleven days, the rule is Historical. A rule that is Historical must pass two proposals to be changed. The second proposal must be title must be “XXX 2”, where XXX is the title of the original preposal. If it fails either time, it is not enacted. If it passes both, it is enacted as normal, and the rule that was changed is no longer Historical, and it becomes historical again after two weeks. For the purpose of the enactment of the first proposal, the first preposal supersedes the text “
If the admin enacting a proposal reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately (eg. “two days after this proposal enacts, Scribe A gains 1 point”), that step is ignored for the purposes of enactment. Once a proposal has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”
The proposals must not be pending at the same time, and may not be enacted on the same day.

Comments

GenericPerson:

07-14-2016 03:59:26 UTC

Note: While the sentiment of protecting older rules is one I would not be completely opposed to, I’m not sure this is the way to go about it. I can’t help but feel like this will only serve to force players to make use of two proposal slots at once as a work around. This is especially an issue for rules from past dynasties, which will almost certainly require changes for compatibility/usability. 11 days also seems somewhat arbitrary. Finally, this line in the clarifications part of the ruleset might be an issue. “If the admin enacting a proposal reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately (eg. “two days after this proposal enacts, Scribe A gains 1 point”), that step is ignored for the purposes of enactment. Once a proposal has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”

Bucky:

07-14-2016 04:35:12 UTC

against
If a proposal passes once, there’s no reason why an identical proposal wouldn’t pass later.  So it’s a bad idea.

However, the reason why this is potentially game-breaking is that it prevents those rules from being modified by non-Proposal means, including CfJs.

Sci_Guy12:

07-14-2016 05:11:50 UTC

Crap. Just had a better idea. What if the vote had to be unanimous?

RaichuKFM:

07-14-2016 06:49:08 UTC

against Per Bucky, and, additionally, protecting older rules is a sentiment I’m opposed to.

Especially in this Dynasty.

GenericPerson:

07-14-2016 13:05:08 UTC

against

Sci_Guy12:

07-14-2016 14:49:04 UTC

Does anyone feel like giving me an idea of rules that WOULD be appreciated in this dyansty? I can’t seem to create a rule that people like.

Bucky:

07-14-2016 15:31:17 UTC

In general, I would appreciate mechanics that link together several existing mechanics.  We could also use more significant Locations, Official Positions and methods of Scoring.  And I think that, all else equal, making a new subrule would go over slightly better than a new top-level dynastic rule.

On the other hand, you should probably steer clear of messing with core rule mechanics, adding extra GNDT information and making open-ended thematic rules that would need additional proposals to be useful.

Brendan:

07-14-2016 18:11:01 UTC

against

Sci_Guy12:

07-14-2016 19:07:47 UTC

against

qwertyu63:

07-14-2016 21:24:54 UTC

against