Sunday, October 11, 2009

Proposal: Slowing Fine [Trivial]

Ironic timeout, 6 FOR, 7 AGAINST, 6 not voting. Failed by Kevan. -2 to Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Oct 2009 05:17:37 UTC

Enact a new subrule of Rule 2.1 (Points) called “Awards and Fines”, with the following text:-

  • A player is awarded ten points each time one of their proposals is enacted.
  • A player is fined two points each time one of their proposals fails.
  • A player is fined two points each time a proposal times out on which they did not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote (excluding their own proposals).

In Rule 2.1.2 (Accountability), replace “would fine or award Points to a Player” with “would fine or award Points to its Proposer”.

Remove the sentences beginning “A player is awarded” and “A player is fined” from Rule 2.1 (Points).

Adding a 2-point fine for abstaining on or ignoring a proposal which timed out, but (since it’s a bit boring to check) clarifying that the enacting admin needn’t list these particular fines when enacting or failing a proposal.

posted by Kevan at 11 Oct 2009 12:11:36 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

redtara: they/them

11-10-2009 13:34:40 UTC

for

Excalabur:

11-10-2009 14:26:22 UTC

for

Klisz:

11-10-2009 14:56:39 UTC

for

arthexis: he/him

11-10-2009 15:55:17 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

11-10-2009 17:05:49 UTC

against

Bucky:

11-10-2009 17:49:05 UTC

against due to the fine for not voting.  Especially since it’s likely that a self-killed proposal will time out at some point.

redtara: they/them

11-10-2009 18:27:06 UTC

against Per self-kill.

Kevan: he/him

11-10-2009 18:37:41 UTC

I suppose an admin could perversely decide to fail a 48-hour-old self-killed proposal for the reason that “half or fewer of its votes are FOR”.

But I’d rather nudge the idle players into life and fix that rare case tomorrow (with a refund should there be any perverse interpretation of self-kills), given how badly two silent new players and a couple of nearly-idle players are slowing the queue down at the moment.

(Does anyone know if Wakukee is still playing? The only reason he isn’t idle is because he posts occasional blog comments; I did PM him yesterday in case he assumed that he’d already idled out, but haven’t had a response.)

redtara: they/them

11-10-2009 18:46:17 UTC

CoV for per Kevan

Oze:

11-10-2009 21:35:24 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

11-10-2009 21:39:14 UTC

for Oranjer popped up on the IRC the other day so I can prob remind him to vote. As for Wak… I have no clue. Though it does seem cheap to stay active with only random comments.

Oranjer:

12-10-2009 01:33:27 UTC

for Sorry, folks! I’ll start paying attention more often!

ais523:

12-10-2009 08:58:55 UTC

against Dislike the fine for not voting, especially as it doesn’t allow explicit abstentions.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2009 10:09:50 UTC

It looks like abstentions won’t be around much longer.

spikebrennan:

12-10-2009 15:49:04 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

12-10-2009 17:17:44 UTC

CoV a third time against

redtara: they/them

12-10-2009 17:38:02 UTC

Passing 7-5

Oze:

12-10-2009 21:23:22 UTC

CoV against

Qwazukee:

13-10-2009 00:12:14 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

13-10-2009 00:30:58 UTC

Currently going 7 vs 7 (according to me)

redtara: they/them

13-10-2009 01:53:26 UTC

After a recount, I think it’s now failing 7-6.