Friday, January 15, 2010

Proposal: What Crisis?

Reached quorum with 21 votes FOR. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Jan 2010 02:53:39 UTC

In Rule 2.3 (Crises), replace “The Executor may Veto any Crisis proposal which he considers to be physically impossible, or otherwise inappropriate.” with:-

If the Executor has not cast a vote on a Crisis, it cannot be enacted, and it can be failed if it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours. The Executor may Veto any Crisis proposal which he considers to be physically impossible, or otherwise inappropriate.

And while I’m here, add to Rule 2.1 (Away Until Morning):-

The Executor can be contacted by private telegram at cartlesham at gmail dot com.

Making it so that the Executor has to approve (or at least DEFerentially wave through) any Crisis before it can enact. I’ll leave the veto in as an explicit reminder that “magically reveal the murderer” type Crises will always fail.

Comments

spikebrennan:

15-01-2010 13:06:56 UTC

The wording is broken- the 48 hour clause can be read as providing that if it has been open for 48 hours without being adminned then it can be failed by any admin regardless of the votes. It could be 28-1 including Executor’s .For. Vote but if the first admin on the scene after 48 hours doesn’t like it, he can fail it.

Kevan: he/him

15-01-2010 13:13:09 UTC

Surely the “it” of “it can be failed” can only refer to “a Crisis on which the Executor has not cast a vote”?

ais523:

15-01-2010 13:16:31 UTC

for

alethiophile:

15-01-2010 13:57:52 UTC

Spike: I’m pretty sure it applies only to crises on which the Executor has not voted. Also,  for

Roujo: he/him

15-01-2010 14:27:31 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

15-01-2010 14:31:05 UTC

Well, that’s one possible interpretation but the alternate interpretation is also possible.  I will vote imperial but I’d encourage a patch so that the first sentence reads something like: “A Crisis cannot be enacted if the Executor has not cast a vote on it.  If a Crisis has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and the Executor has not cast a vote on it then it can be failed.”

Hix:

15-01-2010 14:41:18 UTC

for Given the comments so far, there’s no ambiguity to the meaning.  Sure, there’s a _possible_ interpretation that goes against that meaning, but that doesn’t mean it’s legit.

tecslicer:

15-01-2010 15:42:01 UTC

for

Excalabur:

15-01-2010 16:11:15 UTC

CfJ solves problem.  imperial

Oze:

15-01-2010 16:32:57 UTC

for

yabbaguy:

15-01-2010 16:58:43 UTC

for

digibomber:

15-01-2010 17:55:53 UTC

for

Bucky:

15-01-2010 18:17:53 UTC

for

There:

15-01-2010 18:19:58 UTC

for

Dustin:

15-01-2010 20:12:57 UTC

for

Anonyman:

15-01-2010 20:27:10 UTC

imperial

NoOneImportant:

15-01-2010 21:06:25 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

15-01-2010 21:23:17 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

15-01-2010 21:25:18 UTC

for b/c I trust Kevan.

Darknight: he/him

15-01-2010 21:45:56 UTC

for

TrumanCapote:

15-01-2010 22:48:37 UTC

for

Thrawn:

16-01-2010 01:17:53 UTC

for