Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Proposal: Tweaking proposals

Times out 6 FOR to 8 AGAINST. Failed by Kevan. -2 to ais523.

Adminned at 17 Oct 2009 02:48:56 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule, “Amending Proposals”:

In addition to the sorts of votes mentioned in the rule, “Voting”, players may also make AMEND votes (using the text :ARROW:). For all purposes except those specifically mentioned here, including enactment, an AMEND vote is identical to an AGAINST vote. However, if a player votes AMEND on their own proposal, this does not count as a self-kill, and therefore can be changed and does not necessarily make it possible to fail the proposal. Additionally, if a proposal has more counted AMEND than AGAINST votes, has fewer FOR votes than Quorum, has been open for voting for no more than 24 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed, its proposer may edit it even if it has been commented on; immediately (within about 5 minutes) after doing so, the proposer must comment to the proposal stating that it has been edited. All FOR votes on a proposal that were made before the comment stating that it was edited do not count, for any purpose (although DEFERENTIAL votes continue to count even if they resolve to FOR); FOR votes made after a comment stating that a proposal was edited are FOR votes, as normal (unless the proposal is edited again after that FOR vote is made).

If this works out well, maybe we could make it a core rule. The idea is that if you like the idea behind a proposal but it’s buggy or otherwise problematic, you vote AMEND, and this allows the proposer to fix problems; you can then vote FOR on it after it’s fixed, without needing a fix proposal or to reset the queue. AGAINST votes are still absolute AGAINSTs, and also have the additional purpose of preventing amendment of a proposal; so the idea is that you vote AGAINST if you dislike a proposal, or AMEND if you like the idea but not the execution. To prevent abuses, amending a proposal invalidates FOR votes on it, so people have to revote to pass the new version, explicitly; that way, no version of a proposal can pass unless it’s quorumed with FOR and DEFERENTIAL-resolving-to-FOR votes, or it times out (which will be at least 24 hours after the last edit due to the time limit, and it’ll need more FOR votes after the last edit than AGAINST and AMEND votes altogether, implying that a decent number of people will have had to have looked at it and tried to pass it).

Besides, everyone loves arrows.



10-14-2009 14:42:34 UTC


err for


10-14-2009 14:45:18 UTC



10-14-2009 14:53:28 UTC

for Meh, and you said you didn’t like complex proposals too… I guess I’m not the only lier around here.


10-14-2009 15:04:47 UTC



10-14-2009 15:51:24 UTC

I don’t want to have to keep revisiting a pending proposal once I vote FOR or AGAINST.


10-14-2009 17:14:56 UTC



10-14-2009 17:16:25 UTC

against  due to potential abuse by the Acting Leader given a large number of IMPERIALs on their own proposal, if they are an admin and all proposals ahead of it on the queue are at or near quorum.  The combination is sufficiently rare that it might only happen once per dynasty, but game over if it does happen.


10-14-2009 17:45:53 UTC

@Bucky: that’s probably fixable (e.g. by counting DEFERENTIAL votes as FOR on Leader-authored proposals). Besides, it isn’t really game over, because the dynasty’s emperor-equivalent can’t win, and generally isn’t trying to change the rules so he can win; trying to win your own dynasty is incredibly bad form.


10-14-2009 17:57:53 UTC

against Still think you should try to get your Proposal right the first time.

Also, per spikebrennan, who makes a very good point; how many times do we really want to have to vote on a single Proposal?


10-14-2009 17:58:53 UTC

Also, I don’t seem to have the option of clicking on the ARROW anymore?


10-14-2009 19:14:04 UTC

@Qwaz: It was removed by an admin a while ago; it shouldn’t be too hard to add it back.

Ienpw III:

10-14-2009 20:02:12 UTC



10-14-2009 21:22:39 UTC



10-14-2009 22:00:42 UTC

arrow against  It was removed because it was pointless. I would be for on adding it as the veto icon, though.


10-14-2009 22:01:11 UTC

err. But I still vote against on this one.


10-15-2009 01:21:40 UTC

against Wakukee: that’s not a bad idea, though i may turn it upsidedown first :)


10-15-2009 09:02:43 UTC

against CoV per Bucky.

Rune Master Xan:

10-15-2009 19:39:50 UTC

cool ok for


10-15-2009 21:24:55 UTC

CoV against


10-15-2009 21:28:45 UTC

Currently failing 8-6


10-16-2009 10:36:24 UTC



10-17-2009 04:11:16 UTC

I could enact this, except I’m idle.


10-17-2009 06:01:43 UTC

You couldn’t, because this is hiatus!