spoon-business: REVISED Proposal: Limitation of Veto Power and Clarification of Administrative Powers

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

Yarrgh.  I posted the wrong saved draft of this message.  Here's the
adjusted version, which dovetails better with the Typo proposal on the
issue of public notification, and leaves the handling of proposal Typos
in the jurisdiction of that proposal:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Van Matre 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Limitation of Veto Power and
> Clarification of Administrative Powers
> 
> 
> _Limitation of Veto, Explicit Clarification of Administrative Powers_
> 
> (aka the LOVECAP act)  ;-)
> 
> Rationale: To provide checks on the administrative veto power and its
> adverse effects on players, whilst also empowering the 
> administrator to
> reject technically unfeasible proposals.
> 
> Modify Rule 32/6 by adding the following:
>   
> {{If a proposal would have passed, but is deemed failed *only* due to
> the Administrator's veto, then:
> 
> a) The author of the proposal shall not gain or lose Charm.  
> 
> b) The author of the vetoed proposal also shall not lose 
> points from eir
> Score, but gain nd3 points, where n is the number of yes 
> votes received
> by the vetoed proposal minus the number of no votes received by the
> proposal.  If n is greater than 5, the author shall instead 
> receive 5d3
> points.
> 
> Any player wishing to override veto of a proposal may do so if the
> proposal is resubmitted in a subsequent nweek and at least 3/4 of the
> votes counted for it are affirmative.  [[Pretty obvious 
> corollary to the
> current text of Rule 32, but I wanted to make it explicitly 
> permitted.]]
> }}
> 
> Add to the end of rule 126/1: 
> 
> {{If at any time a player deems an Administrative action invalid,
> believes an Administrative action has altered the ruleset or gamestate
> in a manner inconsistent with the rules, or suspects the Administrator
> of unfairness, nepotism, or cheating in a given action, eir 
> remedy is to
> use the Call For Judgement process.
> 
> In the event of a CFJ naming the Administrator as defendant, 
> the duty of
> randomly selecting a judge shall fall to the player with the highest
> Score.  That player will also be ineligible to judge the CFJ.}}   
> 
> Add a rule entitled 
> _Powers of Executive Tidiness_
> 
> {{
> The Administrator is explicitly empowered to do the following:
> 
> 1) Correct the spelling, grammar, or formatting of any rule or CFJ,
> providing such correction does not alter the meaning of that rule or
CFJ,
> and Administrator posts notice of the correction(s) made to a public
forum
> within 1 nday following the correction.
> 2) Correct the spelling, grammar, formatting or content of any game
documents or
> web pages, provided such correction does not alter the game state.
> 3) Make corrections to the game state when system errors, system
> downtime, program errors, or other unanticipated system events have
> altered the game state in a manner not explicitly permitted by the
> rules.  The Administrator must post notice of the correction(s) 
> made to a public forum within 1 nday following the correction.
> 4) Adjust the Clock and/or Watch as necessary to correct for errors
> introduced by system errors, system downtime, program errors, or other
> unanticipated events.  The Administrator must post notice of the
correction(s) 
> made to a public forum within 1 nday following the correction.
> 
> Should a player object to the Administrator's actions in 
> executing these
> powers, eir remedy is the Call For Judgement process.
> }}