Friday, June 04, 2010

Proposal: Unan1mous

Vetoed procedurally -Darth

Adminned at 04 Jun 2010 20:07:42 UTC

Create the following rule, entitled “Unanimous”:

No DoV may be enacted before 24 hours have passed from the time of the posting of the DoV. 

A DoV that has been self-killed or vetoed must be failed by an Admin before any other Votable Matters are enacted or failed, regardless of Rule 1.5.

No DoV may be enacted if more than 1 DoV is pending.  If 48 hours pass from the time of the posting of a pending DoV, and there are other pending DoVs, all DoVs are failed, and Hiatus ends.  If a DoV fails in this way, the @ who posted the DoV Dies.  If an @ self-kills his or her own DoV, and Hiatus ends in the manner specified in this rule, the @ who posted and self-killed the DoV also Dies.

This rule overrides all other rules which contradict this rule.

Here’s the reasoning.  As per our conversation at the Combat proposal, several of us believe that if teamwork allows several @s to satisfy victory conditions simultaneously, the game becomes a race to post a DoV, which is (in the words of Hix) NOT FUN.  While I don’t want to discourage teamwork, I don’t want a race condition to occur!  So this rule intends to force all winning players to come to a unanimous decision on whose DoV should pass, or face dire consequences (e.g. death).  To take himself out of the voting, an @ can self-kill his own DoV, effective immediately.  To prevent abuse of this rule, the RNG can veto a bogus DoV, also effective immediately. 

About self-killing in this rule:  When I first made this rule, I read it and said, “Why not just post a victory condition, then ‘play chicken’ with the amount of time left till the first CoV ends?”  To prevent this, the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph means that if you bail out immediately before failure of all DoVs, you still get penalized. 

I have a feeling that this proposal is going to get a lot of against votes, because it seems to try to revamp the core rules.  Please take a deeper look before you vote against.  And if you see a loophole, by all means, let me know!

Comments

Hix:

04-06-2010 21:33:35 UTC

against Premature.  I doubt this Dynasty will need such a rule.  In the past, even when there have been rules which require cooperation to produce a victor, a cooperating group usually decides on a winner within that group on its own, without need for extortion from the Ruleset.

A few things:

“self-kill” and “veto” are terms that only apply to proposals.

Nothing should override a CfJ’s ability to step in and resolve a situation.

lilomar:

04-06-2010 21:44:40 UTC

against per Hix

Freezerbird:

04-06-2010 21:46:39 UTC

against I’d rather be sure about what the victory conditions are before seeing this proposal enacted. Besides, I’m not sure I’m against a race to DOV - again it depends on what the victory conditions are.

scshunt:

04-06-2010 22:14:47 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

04-06-2010 22:16:10 UTC

against  The victory conditions I have in mind will only allow one person to win; this dynasty is, after all, based on a single-player game.

Tiberias:

04-06-2010 22:24:47 UTC

against

Jumblin McGrumblin:

04-06-2010 22:25:01 UTC

against

ais523:

04-06-2010 23:36:48 UTC

against There’s only likely to be the one Amulet of Yendor, so there’d end up being only one person who won that way. (Presumably there’ll be a lot of fighting and bitching earlier as to who gets it, if people end up there near-simultaneously…)

h2g2guy:

05-06-2010 00:31:04 UTC

Heh, heh.  I keep forgetting that this is a game with people who play to have fun, not a game with people looking to cheat to win.  I apologize to all for assuming bad intent.  Self-killing.  against

Bucky:

05-06-2010 02:11:24 UTC

against

Klisz:

05-06-2010 03:07:10 UTC

veto procedural