Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Proposal: Signals of Distress

s/k’d and Failed. - lilomar

Adminned at 01 Jul 2010 13:15:09 UTC

Replace the rule entitled “Resolution of Proposals” with the following:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if either of the following is true:-

* It has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has continuously been a proposal for that time, it has more than 1 valid Vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

The oldest pending proposal may be Quarantined if one of the following is true:

* The RNG’s vote on a proposal is QUARANTINE, and that proposal would otherwise pass.
* It has a number of votes for QUARANTINE that equal or exceed quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
* It has a number of votes for QUARANTINE that exceed both the number of votes cast FOR and the number of votes cast AGAINST, and that proposal been open for more than 48 hours.

The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:-

* It has enough AGAINST Votes that it could not be Enacted or Quarantined without one of those Votes being changed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and half or fewer of its Votes are FOR, and the number of votes cast AGAINST equal or exceed those cast for QUARANTINE.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and has fewer than 2 valid Votes.
* The @ who proposed it has Voted AGAINST it.
* The RNG has Voted to VETO it

Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, or a proposal as Quarantined, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

When a proposal is Quarantined, instead of having its stated effect upon the ruleset or gamestate it is moved in its entirety to Quarantine, along with a link to the original proposal post. Proposals in Quarantine have no effect upon the rest of the ruleset or the gamestate until they are moved out of Quarantine by a further proposal - either by amending and fully enacting its effects or by removing it from the ruleset. To all intents and purposes, a Quarantined proposal is considered to have been enacted. Quarantined proposals remain open for discussion but votes cast after the proposal is resolved are no longer counted or considered to be EVCs.

Proposals the RNG has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed. Proposals the author has Voted against are considered self-killed unless the RNG 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. Immediately after enacting a proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the enacting admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.

Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of rule 1.1:

Section 4 is the Quarantine, which contains proposals that have passed but which currently have no effect upon the ruleset.

Amend the following paragraph, from the rule entitled “Victory and Ascension”:

When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the @ who made the DoV as its RNG. (That @ may pass this role to another @ at this point, if he wishes.) The Hiatus continues until the new RNG posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the RNG’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and/or that the words @ and RNG will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset.

as follows:

When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the @ who made the DoV as its RNG. (That @ may pass this role to another @ at this point, if he wishes.) The Hiatus continues until the new RNG posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the RNG’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and/or that the words @ and RNG will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or that any or all of the proposals in Quarantine are removed.

Add a new voting icon, which corresponds to the string :QTINE:. Add a new status for resolved proposals, called Quarantined, which remains open for commenting after enactment.

Quarantine is its own vote class, and the burden lies with enactment - Quarantine counts as AGAINST unless it wins outright.

Comments

Darknight: he/him

29-06-2010 22:32:02 UTC

imperial

Galdyn:

29-06-2010 22:40:59 UTC

one problem i see, is that if you have 4 votes FOR, 3 votes QUARANTINE, and 2 votes AGAINST, it will not pass, because less than half its votes are FOR, it will not be quarantined because the number of votes quarantine does not exceed BOTH the number of votes FOR and AGAINST, and it wouldn’t fail because the number of votes AGAINST does not equal or exceed the number of votes QUARINTINE. Tell me if im missing something here, also it wouldnt fail per the first point, because there are more @s than 9 (as long as there are more @s than 9)

scshunt:

29-06-2010 23:42:42 UTC

against per Galdyn

Also, the capitalization is inconsistent; if you’re going to submit another version, please fix it.

lilomar:

30-06-2010 00:14:52 UTC

You also forgot to ad QUARENTINE as a legal vote in rule 1.4. I’ve made some changes and put up an edited proposal which I think fixes those issues.
@coppro - I think I fixed the capitalization issues, but I may have missed some, I believe that can be fixed when it is enacted by an admin under the typo clause, however.

lilomar:

30-06-2010 00:24:28 UTC

oh, also against

lilomar:

30-06-2010 00:25:03 UTC

:QTINE:

Qwazukee:

30-06-2010 01:57:37 UTC

against

Galdyn:

30-06-2010 02:29:51 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

30-06-2010 06:11:57 UTC

@ Galdyn - Good point. s/k against