Monday, December 29, 2008

Proposal: Shared Rules

Times out at 9-3. Failed. Oze

Adminned at 31 Dec 2008 02:28:25 UTC

Create a rule “Shared Proposals”

In this rule X, Y and Z refer to different factions. A proposal may have [Shared X/Y] in front of the subject, where X and Y are decided by the creator of the proposal. It is referred to as a shared proposal. Shared proposals cannot be faction posts. Shared proposals may only create or modify shared rules. Only a shared proposal or rule can modify a shared rule. When a shared proposal passes, it creates or changes a shared rule which is shared between the factions X and Y. The title of a shared rule or sub-rule must be prefixed by [X/Y]. Shared rules can affect the rules and gamestate of X and Y but it cannot affect the rules and gamestate of Z. To pass, a shared proposal must reach the quorum of both X and Y. The quorum of the main rules is irrelevant. If a shared proposal between X and Y is created by a member of Z, it can be self killed but no other vote by anyone in Z is valid. This includes the implicit FOR vote from the creator of the proposal. A sub-rule may not be shared if the rule it belongs to is not shared. If a rule is shared, all sub-rules of it are considered shared. The shared proposal must be legal in both rulesets that the shared rule would belong to.

I don’t really expect this to pass this late in the dynasty but it could be useful.



29-12-2008 15:02:48 UTC

against It’s unclear to me if the phrase “a shared proposal must reach the quorum of both X and Y” means that it has to pass separately in X and Y, or if a quorum of the combined total of X and Y members has to be reached. (Yes, it’s nitpicky, but those two numbers could potentially be different by one due to rounding, and could then cause an argument as to whether the proposal should pass.)

Aside from that, I’m undecided on whether I like the concept, but that bit needs to be clarified before I’d feel comfortable even considering it.


29-12-2008 16:06:57 UTC

against I’m not sure we need this and I don’t know how stable this is as far as wording (It seems good, but I can’t help feeling like there’s something wrong).


29-12-2008 21:01:14 UTC



29-12-2008 22:01:28 UTC

against Wording feels bad…

Elias IX:

29-12-2008 22:05:34 UTC

for Pfft, the way this proposal lays down how shared rules function is better than what we have now (a few disjoint clauses in separate faction rulesets).

And nothing bad can happen until a shared rule proposal actually passes.

Elias IX:

29-12-2008 22:07:15 UTC

Haha, what I’m saying is, I’m voting FOR until someone can explicitly state a flaw in the proposal.

Christmas is over, so I can go back to thinking “logic over feelings”. Or whatever.

Amnistar: he/him

29-12-2008 22:24:05 UTC

for Seconding Elias’ statements.  I don’t see anything outright wrong with it, and it seems like we do, in fact, need something of this nature.


30-12-2008 03:47:01 UTC


Darknight: he/him

30-12-2008 04:45:59 UTC



30-12-2008 14:18:29 UTC

Elias, I stated what I see as a major flaw as the first comment:  The definition of a quorum is unclear.


30-12-2008 17:23:19 UTC


arthexis: he/him

30-12-2008 17:45:10 UTC



30-12-2008 18:23:10 UTC