Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Proposal: Self killing of proposals

Failed…by quite a bit.  1 for, whole lot of againsts.  Wow.—Rodlen

Adminned at 26 Mar 2009 12:45:01 UTC

Edit rule 1.5 so that

The Scripter who proposed it has voted AGAINST it

and

Proposals the Producer has voted to VETO are considered vetoed. Proposals the author has voted against are considered self-killed unless the Producer has voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill vote is placed.

Becomes:

The Scripter who proposed it has voted AGAINST it and typed SELF KILLED in capital letters next to it

and

Proposals the Producer has voted to VETO are considered vetoed. A scripter may self kill their own proposal by using AGAINST and typing SELF KILLED in capital letters next to it. Proposals the author has voted against are considered self-killed unless the Producer has voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill vote is placed.

Thus preventing confusion and voting after a proposal has already ended but before it is processed by an admin

Comments

Klisz:

03-24-2009 19:20:33 UTC

against  I don’t think this is needed - admins always check who made the vote, so they can tell whether or not it’s s/k’d.

Kevan:

03-24-2009 19:44:41 UTC

against I appreciate it’s sometimes easy to miss, as a player, but adding an extra, specific requirement just opens this up to accidental or malicious votes that look a lot like self-kills but aren’t.

Rodlen:

03-24-2009 19:54:48 UTC

against

gill_smoke:

03-24-2009 20:24:35 UTC

against NO! I don’t think it needs to be a rule, I will do it as a style guide thing but enforcement seems open to abuse.

Devenger:

03-24-2009 20:54:44 UTC

against Most people write ‘s/k’ next to self-kill votes. Before voting you should probably read all comments thoroughly, and see who’s voting what. And as Kevan says, this could cause player errors or tricks, causing admin errors, causing CfJs and death and disaster etc.

Darknight:

03-24-2009 21:34:18 UTC

against

Klisz:

03-25-2009 02:02:46 UTC

Wait a second…

CoV for

This allows players to vote against their own proposals without self-killing them. I like that idea.

Qwazukee:

03-25-2009 03:35:23 UTC

I like the idea of more clarity, but the second bolded sentence is redundant and the whole concept is sorta open to scams.

Jeid:

03-25-2009 05:07:47 UTC

imperial

Josh:

03-25-2009 08:53:53 UTC

against I don’t like the idea of players being able to vote against the proposals without SKing them. The possibility of meta-level voting chicanery is not one that I am interested in.

Tiger:

03-25-2009 09:06:02 UTC

against

ais523:

03-25-2009 09:22:04 UTC

against It would be nice to be able to no-vote on your own proposal without s/king it, I think; but that’s not major enough. (Think of situations where you submit a proposal as a correction of someone else’s.)

Psychotipath:

03-25-2009 14:48:13 UTC

Do you guys really think it would be abused like that? People declaring a self kill vote when it wasn’t their propoasal?

Kevan:

03-25-2009 15:17:13 UTC

The abuse is more that someone could vote “SELF K1LLED” (with a “1” instead of an “I”) on their own flawed proposal, after it had a couple of votes in favour. If it timed out, it would enact.

The accidental misuse is a bigger issue - if someone casts an against vote but typos the “SELF KILLED” (or forgets and writes “s/k” or “I self-kill this”), either we won’t notice, or we’ll notice and have to get the proposer’s attention so that they can go back and self-kill it formally.

Both of these seem a lot more trouble than voters occasionally misreading and wasting a vote-click, on a proposal that’s already been self-killed.

arthexis:

03-25-2009 19:59:48 UTC

against Unneeded

Klisz:

03-26-2009 00:27:55 UTC

CoV against  per Kevan.

allispaul:

03-26-2009 06:00:06 UTC

against