Monday, October 01, 2012

Proposal: Restrictions on Restrictions

Self-killed, failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Oct 2012 12:10:42 UTC

Add the following paragraph to the end of the rule “Teacher Training”:

If this list of conditions contains 5 or more items and at least 60% of them are struck through, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL are ignored, and any Proposal the Professor casts a vote of VETO shall not be Vetoed, Enacted or Failed for the following 48 hours counted from the Professor’s vote. During this period, if at least three Students posted a comment on that Proposal containing the phrase “unreasonable Veto”, the Proposal can again be Enacted or Failed, but not vetoed. Also, during this period, any valid votes casted (following the instructions of the Rule “Votable Matters”)  are calculated for the purpose of Enacting or Failing the Proposal. If that Proposal is pending for more than 48 hours, it should be ignored for the purpose of calculating the oldest pending proposal. This paragraph takes precedence over the Core Rules.

This Proposal is a correction, with the Tenure proposal as its citation.

Kevan’s idea of banishing Veto power is, I think, too rough. This correction gives the Students the power to challenge a Veto casted, without removing the ability to cast a Veto. The exactly number of Students that should disagree with the Professor’s Veto can be changed, of course (and I’d put Quorum, if more players were actually active). The DEFERENTIAL part though is nice, since a Professor who isn’t compliyng with his obligations should not be “trusted” (using the idea of the DEFERENTIAL definition on the rules). Also, as pointed by Kevan, the 5 items should not be a problem.

posted by IceFromHell at 01 Oct 2012 22:46:41 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

IceFromHell:

01-10-2012 22:55:48 UTC

I’m not sure if the “valid votes casted (following the instructions of the Rule “Votable Matters”)” is redundant, but I didn’t wanted to risk other interpretations, since this takes precedence over the Core Rules.

quirck: he/him

02-10-2012 05:39:40 UTC

So, if the Professor casts a veto, during 48 hours the proposal cannot be enacted or failed. As soon as these 48 hours pass, this proposal may again be vetoed. It can’t be enacted since it was legally vetoed.
against

Josh: he/they

02-10-2012 07:01:42 UTC

This does look like it can result in proposals being left perpetually open due to well-timed vetoes by the Professor.

Plus, if the players decide that a veto is unreasonable, it would be quicker to CfJ than to keep the proposal going for another 48 hours +.

against

Kevan: he/him

02-10-2012 10:28:22 UTC

against

IceFromHell:

02-10-2012 16:15:13 UTC

quirck, that’s only the case if the Proposal’s veto is not repealed by the Students, which means the veto SHOULD take place, as it would be “reasonable”. Unless I’m missing how game mechanics would actually resolve, which might be the case.

Josh, that can be corrected by patching “counted from the Professor’s vote” to “counted from that Professor’s vote”.
I’m not sure if a Cfj would be quicker, as it requires Quorum to be enacted before the SAME 48 hours. But again, I don’t know how fast a Cfj usually resolves.

IceFromHell:

03-10-2012 19:08:58 UTC

Well, s/k in the hope of at least accelerating the resolution of the other pending proposals.
against