User:ShiggyGiddy/Rule changes

Intro

For far too long, the rules have been a mess that were rather hotfixed than properly changed. Most of them are also in dire need of a rewrite to avoid misunderstandings, remove arbitrariness, and properly reflect current practise.

In an attempt to not repeat our mistake of 'We should do something about the rules, but not now. Let's just do this one thing real quick before the cup starts next week...', we are trying a more open approach with a set schedule and deadlines. While the whole process might seem a bit over-the-top at first glance, it aims to force the process into the open and focus discussion on points that can actually be tackled properly.

If this trial run turns out to be a success, we should consider doing it again after each cup.

Philosophies behind the rules

The following philosophies have either proven to work or should be at least strived for:

• The rules have one major purpose: to make the cup enjoyable for everyone involved.
• The size or number of rules is not what makes them good or bad.
• The rules shouldn't be just 'laws', but also describe how things are run.
• All rules must be enforcable.
• Decribe the exact circumstances instead of using buzzwords (e.g. 'merc').
• Streamlining things and removing room for arbitrariness is good, but respect the wiggle room the people involved need.
• More freedom or being overly lenient should not come at the cost of making reoccuring tasks like compiling and checking more time consuming and/or prone to errors.
• Avoid changing things for the sake of change unless the metagame seems too stale.
• Don't underestimate the power of the metagame to change the game experience. What seems so hot and overpowered in one cup might sort itself out in the next.
• What everyone thinks they want isn't always what they enjoy most. By extent, keeping some things special is important.

The process

The process for this discussion will run through the following phases:

1. Proposing and compiling changes
2. Discussion and refining of proposed changes
3. Signing changes
4. Implementing changes
5. Minor fixes

While the process will be documented on the wiki, we urge everyone to use the thread for discussion as well.

However, using the rule changes discussion for shitposting/memeing might get you banned from the wiki. The whole discussion will be difficult and hotheaded enough to begin with, so don't make it even more tiresome for everyone involved.

Phase 1: proposing and compiling changes

Deadline: XXXXX

During the first phase, proposals for rule changes are collected for everyone to see:

• Everyone may add proposals to the Proposals page.
• A proposal must be signed using --~~~~.
• Only the owner is allowed to make changes to their proposal.
• The owner may act as a proxy to a group of people or people that do not have wiki access.
• Ownership does not have to imply (full) agreement with the proposal in question.
• If you want to make changes to a proposal that the owner does not agree on, wait for the discussion phase or create your own.

A proposal should meet the following requirements:

• A proposal must offer a practical solution that is both enforcable and viable.
• If a proposal requires additional work to be done (like a service or program), the required resources must be available and explained in detail.
• Avoid merging proposals into one. Create separate proposals for different proposals/solutions.
• A proposal must be able to be voted on by a simple 'for' or 'against' with only minimal room for ', but ...'.

Proposals which fail to meet these requirements will not be carried over to the discussion phase.

Phase 2: discussion and refining of proposed changes

Deadline: XXXXX

Once the deadline for phase 1 ends, all proposals that met the requirements will be moved to Proposal Discussion page and are up for discussion, as well as refinement:

• The discussion may happen anywhere, but preferably in the thread
• All statements/opinions/test results/etc. important to a proposal should be added to the Proposal Discussion page.
• Those comments must be signed using --~~~~, even if the signatory simply serves as a messenger.
• The original owner of the proposal may make slight changes to their proposal based on consensus.

At the end of this phase, all proposed changes should have reached a state that outlines their pros and cons. Furthermore, there should be no open questions remaining beyond whether that proposal should be passed or not.

Proposals meeting these requirements will be moved to the signing phase.

Phase 3: signing proposed changes

Deadline: XXXXX

With all proposals lined up stating their intentions in great details, the signing phase begins:

• Everyone with a wiki account may sign a proposal using --~~~~, stating whether they are for or against it (or don't care).
• The signing is not a simple vote, so do not bother sockpuppet accounts.

Phase 4: Implementing changes

The 4CCC will look at the results of the signing phase and decide which proposals can be implemented. If a proposal seems very controversial despite having a huge following, or if other proposals simply take priority and implementing them all is not viable, the poprosals in question may be shelved until the next rules discussion. Proposals that got little response may receive the same treatment.

The result of this phase is a draft of the updated rules.

Phase 5: minor fixes

Deadline: XXXXX

The draft will be put up for discussion again to focus on the following aspects:

• Whether the proposals were implemented fully and correctly.
• Typos and other mistakes.
• Clear wording.
• Possible loop-holes.

After this face, the updated rules will officially replace the old ones.