Friday, April 08, 2011

Proposal: That old veto argument

Self-killed - coppro

Adminned at 11 Apr 2011 13:53:37 UTC

In rule 1.5 “Resolution of Proposals”, just after the second bulleted list, add

Additionally, proposals that the Chairman has voted to VETO may be failed instantly by any admin.

This proposal comes up so often it even has its own FAQ entry, so I won’t repeat the arguments there.

Instead, I’ll explain why I’m reproposing it now, and that’s because I’ve noticed a really big reason the “fast veto” may be necessary, especially this dynasty. There have been a lot of flawed attempts to change the MC-lock victory condition, and the people most responsible for pushing the change are thus using up nearly all their slots on it, preventing them moving forwards with other things. If the Chairman could return slots (or, at least, his own), it would avoid this problem, meaning that valid gameplay wasn’t blocked by an attempt to close a perceived loophole. (The recently repealed “third slot” rule had a similar purpose; this way achieves a similar aim in a way, although not exactly the same, but is simpler and so less confusing to newbies.)



04-08-2011 05:53:18 UTC

against I wouldn’t be doing anything else with those slots anyway.


04-08-2011 05:56:53 UTC



04-08-2011 06:29:02 UTC



04-08-2011 07:17:24 UTC

against for the usual reasons.

Kevan: HE/HIM

04-08-2011 07:22:45 UTC

against Not sure I see a problem here - yes, there have been some flawed attempts to tinker with the victory condition recently, but those flaws have either been mistakes or strategic decisions by the proposers. I trust it was deliberate that your proposal included a “this only enacts if the other proposal fails” clause; you introduced an intentional weakness that would give you a personal advantage if people went along with it, and it didn’t work out.

I’d say the rough-and-tumble to amend an easy victory condition, of balancing airtight fixes against selfish interests, is valid gameplay, and is possibly Nomic at its best.


04-08-2011 18:35:43 UTC

imperial per the boss


04-08-2011 19:27:45 UTC

for For the usual reasons as well.

Kevan: HE/HIM

04-08-2011 22:21:38 UTC

Do the usual reasons also extent to fast self-kills, or fast any-failures-whatsoever? I’m still bothered by fast-veto translating to “fast self-kill, but you have to ask the Emperor to veto it for you”, and wonder why the pro-fast-veto lobby don’t go all the way to fast self-kills.


04-08-2011 22:36:47 UTC

Because all kinds of fast-fails are potentially abusive when a dynastic rule triggers on proposals failing, but fast vetoes are less so because they require the Chairbeing’s cooperation.


04-08-2011 23:13:29 UTC



04-08-2011 23:41:59 UTC



04-09-2011 03:05:16 UTC

Because I view the Fast-Veto as a tool of the Emperor, not something that you should be able to activate just because you want a slot back.

I was rather happy with the way the Procedural Veto worked, and I know it helped me to keep things moving during my dynasty.

Darknight: HE/HIM

04-09-2011 03:33:02 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

04-09-2011 08:27:35 UTC

[lilomar] But people do activate it when they want a slot back; if the mechanic is “self-kills can be failed at any time once the Emperor has rubber-stamped them”, then that’s how people use it, they start treating the veto as an uncontroversial formality, and becoming impatient when the Emperor takes too long about it (or even declines to veto).

In fact, that proposal also happens to be a good example of why “keeping things moving” isn’t great for BlogNomic - the proposer reacted to an early criticism by demanding and receiving a veto after twenty minutes, only to have their second version fail when other people got to read it and point out some other flaws. This is fine for the few people playing the game in real-time at that moment, but spam for everyone else.


04-09-2011 20:15:24 UTC



04-10-2011 11:59:27 UTC

Interesting - currently this is failing 4-8, but if the mantle ends up with ais or lilomar it starts passing 7-3.

Kevan: HE/HIM

04-10-2011 17:35:41 UTC

We could even say that one of the things an Emperor gets to pick for their dynasty is its Veto Model (fast/slow/procedural), given that this seems related to how an Emperor wants their dynasty to run.


04-10-2011 17:55:40 UTC

Interesting. I’d probably support that.


04-10-2011 19:30:09 UTC

against s/k, not because I disagree with the proposal, but because I think it’s unfair for a change in Emperor to change the outcome of a core proposal like that. So I’m voting with Kevan.


04-11-2011 20:52:34 UTC

And just now, I realised another benefit of the fast veto: at the start of a dynasty, you veto proposals that made sense only under the dynastic rules of the old dynasty, but the people who made them don’t get their slots back until the queue clears, which is problematic if the queue’s held up by a controversial Core Proposal that wasn’t vetoed (due to being a Core Proposal). It seems bizarre to punish people in a new dynasty for being active in the previous dynasty…