Sunday, July 03, 2011

Proposal: Trying again: Removing Extraneous Veto/Deferential

Fails 2-9 with quorum AGAINST

Adminned at 03 Jul 2011 23:51:26 UTC

In “Dynasties”, replace

The Announcer may Vote to VETO any Proposal.

with

The Announcer may Vote to VETO any Proposal if and only if that it is not a Core Proposal.

In “Voting”, replace

If there is no Announcer, or the Vote is made by the proposal’s author on their own proposal and the Announcer does not Vote on it, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.

with

If there is no Announcer, the Vote is made by the proposal’s author on their own proposal and the Announcer does not Vote on it, or the Proposal is a Core Proposal, then a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.

Initially I went nuts replacing “Proposal” with “Proposal but not a core proposal”.  Then I realized that explicitly disallowing the Announcer from VETOing Core Proposals is sufficient.

Comments

Yoda:

03-07-2011 04:53:38 UTC

imperial

... jk.  against As was said last time, the right to veto a proposal is an important one.

Bucky:

03-07-2011 05:40:25 UTC

against .  The ability to veto a core proposal when a game-breaking flaw is discovered is an important safety feature.

SingularByte:

03-07-2011 06:38:44 UTC

against

scshunt:

03-07-2011 08:11:39 UTC

against

Blacky:

03-07-2011 10:01:00 UTC

against

mideg:

03-07-2011 18:40:26 UTC

for
Giving a single person the ability to veto a core proposal when a game-breaking flaw is discovered is not a safety-feature but the invitation for that person to break the game.

Safety in numbers, if a game-breaking feature in a core proposal is discovered, the proposal will hopefully not get a majority.

Josh: RICHARDO VON NESTOR HE/HIM

03-07-2011 19:24:31 UTC

Trust the emperor.  against

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-07-2011 20:17:12 UTC

[mideg] This is about being able to veto a proposal that would introduce a game-breaking flaw. (Typically in the case where we realise after 24 hours of cheerful voting that a proposal actually has a deadly flaw in it; it’s quicker and safer for the Emperor to veto it, than to rely on everyone to change their vote.) Vetoing a game-breaking proposal does not break the game.

In the cases where we need to quickly fix some game-breaking aspect of the core ruleset, we’d be using a Call for Judgment anyway, which is already unvetoable.

mideg:

03-07-2011 20:38:34 UTC

[Kevan:] I know. I still think that I trust the majority more than a single person.

ais523:

03-07-2011 20:40:35 UTC

against I think it’s good form for emperors to voluntarily hold to this rule. However, it’s reasonable that a veto might be needed in an emergency.

aguydude:

03-07-2011 22:17:06 UTC

Kevan: That’s what CfJs are for.

scshunt:

03-07-2011 22:57:15 UTC

aguydude: That’s what he said.

Doctor29:

03-07-2011 23:02:56 UTC

I dont really understand this so ill just imperial

Darknight: HE/HIM

04-07-2011 03:46:41 UTC

against Veto abuse only happened once many many yrs ago so i’m fine leaving everything as is.