Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Call for Judgment: Some Housekeeping

Antiquorumed. Josh

Adminned at 19 May 2011 00:44:36 UTC

Replace the second paragraph in the rule “Call for Judgment” with the following text:

Any Call for Judment may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that CfJ) if any of the following is true:
- It has a number of FOR votes that exceeds or equals Quorum.
- It has been posted for at least 4 days and more than half the cast Votes are FOR votes.
- It has been posted for at least 48 hours, there is a hiatus going on, and more than half the cast Votes are FOR votes.

Any CfJ may be failed by any Admin (and no effects of the CfJ carried out) if any of the following are true:
- It has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceeds or equals Quorum.
- It has been posted for at least 4 days and no more than half the cast Votes are FOR votes.
- It has been posted for at least 48 hours, there is a hiatus going on, and no more than half the cast Votes are FOR votes.

Delete the text “Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).” from the rule titled “Resolution of Proposals” and add the same text to the end of the fourth paragraph of the rule titled “Gamestate Tracking”.

Replace the text “either the Market has Voted FOR it” in the rule titled “Victory and Ascension” with “either the Market’s Vote is FOR”.

 

These are some clarifications to the Core Ruleset that have been brought up in the course of this hiatus.  If my DoV does pass, I plan on waiting for this to pass before posting the Ascension Address so that it does not get lost in the sea of new posts.

Comments

Crumb:

05-17-2011 05:02:55 UTC

Shouldn’t this be a proposal?

Bucky:

05-17-2011 05:14:17 UTC

against  per Crumb.

Josh:

05-17-2011 05:54:56 UTC

No, CfJs can be used for this purpose.

Don’t like this bit, though:

Delete the text “Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).” from the rule titled “Resolution of Proposals” and add the same text to the end of the fourth paragraph of the rule titled “Gamestate Tracking”.

so against

Purplebeard:

05-17-2011 08:01:13 UTC

Like Josh, I’m not sure about that change. That sentence doesn’t neatly fit in either rule in my opinion.

The core rules could certainly do with some reorganizing, though, if only in the rule ordering, which makes little sense in some areas. I’ll draft up a couple of suggestions once we’re out of hiatus.

Purplebeard:

05-17-2011 08:01:35 UTC

against

Josh:

05-17-2011 09:00:06 UTC

Also,

If my DoV does pass, I plan on waiting for this to pass before posting the Ascension Address so that it does not get lost in the sea of new posts.

Please don’t do this - we’ve been caught up in hiatus for long enough! We have the side bar, we’ll keep an eye on it.

Ienpw III:

05-17-2011 13:04:29 UTC

for  for
while there may be a few issues with this they are small and easily remedied

Yoda:

05-17-2011 13:41:14 UTC

@Josh: The reason I did this is because its current placement means it can be ignored during a hiatus.  I am placing the sentence in Gamestate Tracking which is still covered during a hiatus.

Yoda:

05-17-2011 13:43:59 UTC

And as per Josh, I will go ahead and post my AA.

Josh:

05-17-2011 14:01:13 UTC

@Yoda - I’m not sure that that the case. Hiatus mandates what game actions can be undertaken, but non-action provisions in the ruleset - such as this one - still apply regardless of where they are.

SingularByte:

05-17-2011 14:38:30 UTC

for

Roujo:

05-17-2011 14:46:59 UTC

Explicit abstention for the time being, as I’m not sure which way to go.

Ely:

05-17-2011 16:00:40 UTC

Neither am I.  for If nothing better turns up. (PpB?)

ais523:

05-17-2011 17:04:37 UTC

against broken because “Market” is no longer defined, and dynastic keyword replacement doesn’t affect pending proposals and CFJs. (If I’m writing a CFJ or proposal that I think might cross dynasties, I normally put in a special case to allow for that.)

Ely:

05-17-2011 17:16:24 UTC

Only the last sentence is.

Hix:

05-17-2011 18:03:04 UTC

against

Darknight:

05-17-2011 18:03:59 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-17-2011 18:35:35 UTC

against O duh, I did forget about the keywords changing.

Ely:

05-17-2011 19:19:40 UTC

against then

Ienpw III:

05-17-2011 19:33:28 UTC

CoV against

SingularByte:

05-17-2011 19:43:17 UTC

CoV against

Keba:

05-17-2011 20:35:41 UTC

against

Winner:

05-18-2011 22:24:21 UTC

against

scshunt:

05-18-2011 22:35:45 UTC

against

aguydude:

05-18-2011 23:28:00 UTC

against

Galtori:

05-19-2011 03:45:55 UTC

against