Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Speedier Actions

["William Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/5/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Create a new rule entitled "Unanimous Consent" with the following text:
> {{{
> If the rules allow a Player to perform a game action with X support
> and without Y objections, for any values of X and Y, he may, at his
> option, instead perform that action after obtaining Unanimous Consent
> to perform that action.  This rule defers to any rule that allows and
> action and explicitly forbids the use of Unanimous Consent.
>
> A Player obtains Unanimous Consent for an action by announcing in a
> Public Forum the action he intends to take and the fact that he's
> seeking Unanimous Consent.  The action takes place when a simple
> majority of the Active Players have announced their support for the
> Action in the Public Forum if and only if no Player has announced an
> objection to the action in the meantime.  If any Player does object to
> the action in this interval, the action does not take place,
> regardless of the threshhold of objections that would have been
> required to stop the action had it been attempted without Unanimous
> Consent.  The Player attempting the action may not perform the same
> action by Unanimous Consent in the same nweek, although he may perform
> the action with X support and without Y objections through a new
> announcement.
> }}}
>
> }}




I have noticed that most of the actions "without Y objections" have a
relatively low value of Y. In that case, if you try and do something, say,
without 2 objections, getting half of the active players to support you does
not mean there will not be 2 others that might object.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss