BlogNomic: Universal Veto

Friday, May 15, 2009

Call for Judgment: Universal Veto

Reached a quorum of AGAINST votes. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 May 2009 15:34:37 UTC

Currently, as per Dynastic Rule 2.1, I am allowed to veto the Proposal “Veto Bait.” However, due to that Proposal having been adminned (and the fact that I am not the Host), I find myself incapable of actually vetoing it.

Unadmin the Proposal “Veto Bait.” Allow each Contestant to veto it using the Universal Veto symbol, . Once this Proposal has been reopened for 24 hours, it may be readminned as Universally Vetoed with the symbol if more than one Contestant has commented on it with the symbol.

Once the Proposal “Veto Bait” has been Universally Vetoed, repeal Dynastic Rule 2.1, as the Proposal creating it was Vetoed (and Universally so).

Comments

Qwazukee:

15-05-2009 11:30:33 UTC

Kevan: he/him

15-05-2009 11:34:47 UTC

You can veto it. All vetoing means is that the proposal now can’t be enacted (a proposal can only be enacted if it “has not been vetoed or self-killed”).

I was kind of expecting ais to repeal this one.

because current blog templates don’t support a proposal being “vetoed with the symbol ”.

Qwazukee:

15-05-2009 11:46:50 UTC

Oh, you know we could do it if we tried, Kevan. : P

There is no current process by which I might veto it, thus this CfJ.

delta:

15-05-2009 11:57:07 UTC

Kevan: he/him

15-05-2009 12:05:53 UTC

I’d say that “players are permitted to do X” means that we can just declare that we’re doing it. Or not even declare it; the proposal magically becomes vetoed as soon as anyone decides that they want to.

And unadminning an old, magically-vetoed proposal isn’t too helpful, here - it’d freeze the queue for 24 hours, as we can’t enact it (it’s vetoed) or fail it (it had loads of FOR votes). And if ais523 vetoed it for us, the last clause of the CfJ wouldn’t trigger, and Rule 2.1 would still be there, putting you right back where you started…

Influenza:

15-05-2009 12:08:07 UTC

What’s wrong with that rule? Is it not the defining point of this dynasty??? Never repeal rule 2.1!

Qwazukee:

15-05-2009 12:14:08 UTC

Nothing wrong with the rule, I was just looking for a way to use it. Although I do suppose the queue thing might be an issue.

Fyi delta, you can’t vote on a Call for Judgment.

delta:

15-05-2009 12:21:56 UTC

Oops, sorry!

Wakukee:

15-05-2009 12:34:56 UTC

... ? I’ll figure out this later…

Quazie:

15-05-2009 13:39:22 UTC

TAE:

15-05-2009 14:01:37 UTC

Can someone please explain the whole “veto bait” issue for those of us who weren’t around during the last dynasty?

Is there some reason why we can’t just pass a proposal to “repeal rule 2.1”?

Regardless, it seems that Kevan is right that this would jam up the queue so

Devenger:

15-05-2009 14:20:33 UTC

this is what happens when I try to not veto anything for a dynasty… let this be a lesson to the lot of you… :D

Kevan: he/him

15-05-2009 14:40:52 UTC

“Veto bait” was just the fallout of one five-minute conversation on IRC. Devenger mentioned being proud of his record of not having to veto anything, so a bunch of people immediately rushed over to make proposals he would “have” to veto.