dark subforum ideas thread: xxx edition

prop stupid: lock every thread in hawkspace after dark and disallow the creation of new threads, but leave had visible.

solaris how is that even enforceable

what kind of coward lets that stop them

NO ON PROP STUPID

actually i'm going to overrule myself completely on that bullshit rule 0 interpretation that's just a nasty can-of-worms later on... for most, "all-upper-or-lowercase" is not a pain-in-the-ass formatting proposition, but for btp on an ipad, it is, so he is actually exempt (as well as all others on an ipad or other mobile device w/ autocorrect).

prop negatori: propositions+rule changes can be overturned via negaprops with the same name as the original proposition.

when you make a negaprop you should make a note of how many yeses the original proposition got, total, including yeses received after the proposition passed (the neganaymeral).

getting this neganaymeral wrong, by accident or by attempts to rig the system, renders your negaprop unpassable and the original proposition immune to further negaprop-based overturning. the onus of accuracy is on the negapropositioner!

negaprops can be voted yes or no. "no" votes on a negaprop only work up to three maximum. a negaprop will pass and the original proposition will be overturned if it gets enough yes votes to hit the neganaymeral. for every no vote (up to a maximum of three), the number of yes votes required to pass increases by one.

negaprops should be formatted with white-text black-background, but it's optional if you're on a device and it's really inconvenient. generally you should though because overturning stuff takes thought and effort

ok so it turns out that there's no actual punishment for violating the rules. proposition 14: if you break the rules your usertitle gets force-changed to "2 trash 4 trash". yes on 14

proposition chiseled slabs: rules aren't actually subject to enforcement until they're written in the stickied "what is hawkspace" thread. moderators with power over hawkspace after dark subforum are obligated to edit in all passed rule changes at their earliest convenience.

You must be registered to view this content.

yes on chiseled slabs. i'm still confused on what a negaprop is and though i like confusing, the whole point was to make voting super-simple, so...

i don't know, maybe explain it a little more? like, what does a "no" mean versus a "yes" on a negaprop? isn't this the same as the existing method of overturning-by-voting-against-until-2-or-less-net-yesses but with a limit on voting "no" on the negaprop (which could either mean in support of not-overturning or in support of overturning, depending)?

can't we repeal propositions with a proposition already?

like, a regular proposition

also yes on eagle

a negaprop has a different, slightly-harder-but-still-reasonable, pass condition. This way we don't have a series of first-to-three propositions trying to overturn an existing proposition. it's a clear motion to overturn an existing proposition, rather than suggesting something added/subtractive/otherwise confusing.

let's say a proposition got six "yes" votes and two "no" votes at the time you make your negaprop, so the neganaymeral is 4. you make your negaprop and folks start voting on it. if you hit 4 "yes"es before anyone votes "no", the original proposition is overturned.

if however someone votes "no" then obviously you're going to need more "yes" votes. i don't think dogpiling is fun for anyone, so the maximum that "no" votes can bump up a negaprop's pass threshold is three. that'd make the pass threshold 7 "yes" votes, which is a pretty tall order already unless the original proposition sucked serious ass.

yes on negatori

no on prop 14 (I want to amend/carify it)

yes on prop 15

no on proposition proper

no on prop proper

no on negaprops, i think people should be able to repeal propositions as easily as enact them

you seem to be operating under the impression that it is necessary to have a separate proposition to repeal a proposition, but part of the beauty of the voting system as-is is that votes are never closed and you can repeal something already in-effect just by pushing it back under the 3-yes threshold (the yeshold, if you will allow me to portmanteau).

the neganaymeral is just net yesses, and for a negaprop you need to MEET the net yesses with a new batch of net nega-yesses (plus a maximum of 3 extra) whereas for a regular overturn you just need to meet the net posi-yesses, minus 3. since the proposal negatori does not take the already-existing overturning mechanism out-of-play, there's no reason anyone who wanted to overturn something would use it, since it only makes their goal harder. no on negatori

Proposition 16: If a post breaks any of the rules in HAD that were in effect at the time of its posting, and it is quoted in this thread with an explanation of which rule it is violating, then the poster who committed the violation will have their user title changed (by Schazer or Pinary) to "2 trash 4 trash."

Posts that quote rules violations in thread 1527 with the express purpose of pointing out the rules violation are not subject to the rules of hawkspace after dark.

The rulebreaker may change their title back at the earliest convenience with no penalty.

This rule is not retroactive; all posts made in HAD before Proposition 16 takes effect are not subject to the rules.

New rules don't work retroactively unless explicitly claimed otherwise.

yes on prop 16

yes on mean girls

No on prop 16

also prop 12: trol seasson is the hawkpsace after dark national anthem

yes on prop 12

yes on prop 12

yes on meangirls

prop 673: no tricking in had

no on prop 16 because I want to add amnesty for people who weren't aware kinda-arbirary silly rules were in effect.

no on mean girls cuz all you gotta do is quote a rulebreaking post then you yourself can break rules with impunity (at least in the current phrasing).

---

Proposition Chiselled Slabs x2 combo: Rules in effect are split into golden rules[/b] and [color=piss]piss rules. All rules active at the time Proposition CSx2C are golden rules, golden rules become piss rules with a passed proposition for such.

Any thread may cast a first-to-three vote within its readership to render piss rules ineffective within the thread. the OP should edit to indicate which rules are no longer enforced via this vote.


---

Examples for piss rules would be stuff about formatting or nocaps/allcaps

i cant believe none of you want to help me pass porp gay which literally can only serve the purpose of me bullying jac more effectively because no one else would use it what the fuck guys

anyway as a general rule i think the part where we start to try to actually like, punish people for rule breaking rules that arent real rules is where things go haywire and by that mark thats why i dont think that three to win works as a general thing because honestly, i dont think voting for making rules choices works at all in this scenario/space bc its like

in hawkspace id only vote for something if its funny and if an actual serious thing happened i would, not want that to be resolved with voting a punishment or solution, because an Actual Serious Thing Happening means it needs to be dealt with For Real and mafia/nomic esque tallies or whatever dont feel to me like tthey automatically mean Actual Discussion which is what would be Actually Required for some things

i dont think it works at all for hawkspace, basically, but thats just my onion and also i barely care so, ignore this if you want!

You must be registered to view this content.

no on 14
no on negatori
no on 15
yes on chiseled slabs
no on proper
yes on mean girls
no on 16
no on 673
no on chiselled slabs x2 combo
yes on gay

why do we need a system of punishment