Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The_Two_Eternities]

The below proposals are stalled due to a disagreement between Liberonscien and roseheart on how conditional votes are to be treated.

Proposal Titles(4*): Liberonscien, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999* (conditional version passes in about 7.5 hours)
Divisions V1.1(4*): Liberonscien*, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999 (conditional version passes in about 10 hours)

Citizens has PASSED. Exact text: "Guests may register to the game as Citizens by posting to the thread "I, [Username], register to the thread as a citizen and understand that my position is below the Global Directors.". "

The following votes are still ongoing.

3 Proposal Limit A Day(3): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(4*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999

[Naturegirl1999]

Can roseheart and Liberonscien quote/ post the disagreement for how conditional support works? It’s a bit hard to find the argument to put thoughts in

[RoseHeart]

Sense there's a free slot I could join your counsel, unless you guys are set on reducing the size of the counsel.

Welcome Global Director 6. Or, soon to be since you only asked if you could.

What is the condition for underline rule proposals? What is your conditional support?

Here. I improved the wording, the old version could be misinterpreted in some places. I noticed that when TTE/Bookkeeper started underlining prop titles in the votebox. I only intended for the first use by the proposer to be mandatory.

[RoseHeart]

It should be noted, this has been a 3 way conversation.

So we should talk about conditional support since that has come up a few times recently. My understanding is, if 48 hours passes, the rule fails unless all agree on the condition. In the case of "1.1" or updated versions, at 48 hours the "1.0" fails and any votes not for the newer one well those names are removed.

Does that sound about right?

Could you rephrase that?

What do you think should happen for example, if your Divisions (original version) reaches the 48 hr mark?

Ah, well, since I no longer support it, I think it should be removed from the vote.

Just a note for the future: After careful examination of the rules, it is my interpretation that it is not possible to vote for one subsection of a proposal and not another.

I think you are right. But I also think we are still able to do it. We are actually voting on two proposals, we are just using a kind of secretary shorthand to display them as one. There is also no rule that two active proposals can't have the same name. When a condition is made, that is the start time of the offshoot "technically new" proposal.

Proposal Titles may effect this situation, as that adds rules about how new proposals are made.

That's... true? I think?

Same for 3 Proposals/Day.

[RoseHeart]

If the Global Director rule gets passed, and it looks like it will, then I would like to ask that my fellow members do not select titles for themselves that are too ostentatious or derogatory.

I'm personally aiming for something simple like GD-1 "Clockwork".

OP Liberonscien's vocabulary is richer than mine. I thought ostentatious meant pompous or narcissistic. I took this (wrong) understanding of these guidelines to heart, and I think they are good guidelines.

I think words like Clockwork and Marbles are abstract. There wouldn't be a Position called by one of these names(and we may later create actual Positions). An abstract concept has an eternal characteristic to it that fits how we are the "gods" of our reality we are building together.

These are just my thoughts, you may do as you wish as the rule does not say otherwise, and only requires a "concise nickname."

[Naturegirl1999]

I see. So it’s about whether the rule’s descendants fail when the original rule fails, or whether the descendants have a chance at passing even though the original fails. Did I get this right? If so, I vote the latter. That conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule. Does this make sense?

If the Global Director rule gets passed, and it looks like it will, then I would like to ask that my fellow members do not select titles for themselves that are too ostentatious or derogatory.

I'm personally aiming for something simple like GD-1 "Clockwork".

OP Liberonscien's vocabulary is richer than mine. I thought ostentatious meant pompous or narcissistic. I took this (wrong) understanding of these guidelines to heart, and I think they are good guidelines.

I think words like Clockwork and Marbles are abstract. There wouldn't be a Position called by one of these names(and we may later create actual Positions). An abstract concept has an eternal characteristic to it that fits how we are the "gods" of our reality we are building together.

These are just my thoughts, you may do as you wish as the rule does not say otherwise, and only requires a "concise nickname."

It’s fine, I didn’t know what ostentatious meant either and thought the same thing, so I looked it up and realized that it didn’t mean what I thought. Words can be weird.

[RoseHeart]

I see. So it’s about whether the rule’s descendants fail when the original rule fails, or whether the descendants have a chance at passing even though the original fails. Did I get this right? If so, I vote the latter. That conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule. Does this make sense?

Agreed.

[The_Two_Eternities]

It should be noted, this has been a 3 way conversation.

That's not what I intended. The "note for the future" thing was in response to your proposal Slayer Roleplayer, the first one (to the best of my memory) that included two rule changes. I meant to say "In my opinion, one can't vote for half of Slayer Roleplayer and not the other half." Of course, I didn't quite understand your reply in that context, so it's possible that you considered it a comment on the conditional support discussion.

I noticed that when TTE/Bookkeeper started underlining prop titles in the votebox. I only intended for the first use by the proposer to be mandatory.

Oh, I didn't interpret your proposal that way. I just thought it was a useful formatting thing. Of course, it's perhaps not necessary.

Proposal Titles(4*): Liberonscien, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999* (conditional version passes in about 1.5 hours)
Divisions V1.1(4*): Liberonscien*, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999 (conditional version passes in about 3.5 hours)

3 Proposal Limit A Day(3): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(4*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999

[Naturegirl1999]

Proposal Titles(4*): Liberonscien, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999* (conditional version passes in about 1.5 hours)
Divisions V1.1(4*): Liberonscien*, TTE*, Marbles*, Naturegirl1999* (conditional version passes in about 3.5 hours)

3 Proposal Limit A Day(3): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(4*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999

[/quote]

[RoseHeart]

Ninja'd! I might vote for your bookkeeping TTE, but I firmly believe every rule added, should be done exactly as proposed. When possible.

Ah, well, since I no longer support it, I think it should be removed from the vote.

I see. So it’s about whether the rule’s descendants fail when the original rule fails, or whether the descendants have a chance at passing even though the original fails. Did I get this right? If so, I vote the latter. That conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule. Does this make sense?

Summoning Phantom Rules
New rule: Every rule added, should be done exactly as proposed. Exceptions include: removal or addition of BBC formatting, removal or addition of indentation and spacing, removal of proposal clarifying text, and if the rule is effected by another rule.
New rule: If the proposer of a pending rule no longer supports it, it should be removed from the vote.
New rule: Conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule.

Reason: I think it is good to have some soft rules here and there, but when they are less an option and more an expectation, it is time to promote them.
Note: I considered adding TTE's "no meta-voting incentives" idea, but a rule that prevents new rules would need to be carefully worded, and these ones were already ready.

Clarity Law
A rule is not in effect until it is added to the OP.

Reason: To not confuse newcomers, or ourselves.
Note: I won't be doing a proposed OP formatting post today, as I am busy.

[Naturegirl1999]

Ninja'd! I might vote for your bookkeeping TTE, but I firmly believe every rule added, should be done exactly as proposed. When possible.

Ah, well, since I no longer support it, I think it should be removed from the vote.

I see. So it’s about whether the rule’s descendants fail when the original rule fails, or whether the descendants have a chance at passing even though the original fails. Did I get this right? If so, I vote the latter. That conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule. Does this make sense?

Summoning Phantom Rules
New rule: Every rule added, should be done exactly as proposed. Exceptions include: removal or addition of BBC formatting, removal or addition of indentation and spacing, removal of proposal clarifying text, and if the rule is effected by another rule.
New rule: If the proposer of a pending rule no longer supports it, it should be removed from the vote.
New rule: Conditional rules get a chance at passing whether or not the original rule passes or fails. After the original rule is passed, the descendant can be treated like a revision rule, but if the original rule fails, the descendant can still have a chance as a new rule.

Reason: I think it is good to have some soft rules here and there, but when they are less an option and more an expectation, it is time to promote them.
Note: I considered adding TTE's "no meta-voting incentives" idea, but a rule that prevents new rules would need to be carefully worded, and these ones were already ready.

Clarity Law
A rule is not in effect until it is added to the OP.

Reason: To not confuse newcomers, or ourselves.
Note: I won't be doing a proposed OP formatting post today, as I am busy.

+1 to all rules in this post, what would each of them be called for the Votebox?

[RoseHeart]

+1 to all rules in this post, what would each of them be called for the Votebox?

Proposals can have multiple rules and pass or fail as one.

Default Setting(1): Liberonscien
3 Proposal Limit A Day(3): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(4*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999
Summoning Phantom Rules(2): Marbles, Naturegirl1999
Clarity Law(2): Marbles, Naturegirl1999

[King Zultan]

Default Setting(1): Liberonscien
3 Proposal Limit A Day(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(5*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(5): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE, King Zultan
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, King Zultan
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999
Summoning Phantom Rules(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan
Clarity Law(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan

[The_Two_Eternities]

You won't be doing a formatting proposal? Huh. I guess I could try to just copy the style of your first one, the un-added rules backlog goes back to page 8...

Note for Lib: The edited versions of Proposal Titles and Divisions have passed.

Also, Zultan needs to be added to the player list.

Default Setting(1): Liberonscien
3 Proposal Limit A Day(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan
Underline Proposal Titles V1.1(5*): Marbles*, Liberonscien, TTE*, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan
Global Directors V2(4): Marbles, Liberonscien, TTE, Naturegirl1999
Slayer Roleplayer(5): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, TTE, King Zultan
Consequences(3-1): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien | TTE
Ball(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, Liberonscien, King Zultan
Heirs(4): Liberonscien, TTE, Marbles, Naturegirl1999
Summoning Phantom Rules(4): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan, TTE
Clarity Law(3): Marbles, Naturegirl1999, King Zultan

Novoting on Clarity Law, because although the idea's nice I'm not sure it'd work.

[RoseHeart]

I will, that was last night.

But either way as long as they are as worded either is fine.

Edit: Since you logged out after posting that, I am going to assume you haven't been working on it for the past 3 hours, so I will begin to collect them.