Re: [s-d] [s-b] Welcome to A!

[Cassie Bayer <kisse.bnomic@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/2/21 comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>

> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Cassie Bayer <kisse.bnomic@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > The proposal has already been presented, and must be placed on the
> ballot.
>
> It can be revised, or, of course, voted down.
>
> > A good idea may be to require that proposals sit unobjected for two days
> > before they are settled to be on the ballot?
>
> Proposals have to be unanimously accepted before they can even be voted on?
>

Not unanimously accepted, but rather unanimously decided to pass into
voting.  I presented an alternative as well.  The list, I suppose would be
three parts, and proposal meeting the following:

* Unopposed for N days
* Support by at least (Number of players) / N players
* One greater Support over Objection

If any of those three meet up, it's entirely reasonable to accept the
proposal to the ballot.  Otherwise, there's still enough question of if it
should be discussed/debated further.  These are simply three conditions that
I can think of to force it onto the agenda to be voted.

Note: just because someone votes for a proposal to proceed to vote doesn't
mean that they intend to vote to support it.  For instance, everyone could
leave it unopposed because they believe there to be such an overwhelming
disapproval of the proposal that it will be dead.

The idea of this is to present a low-level, but non-zero "energy barrier"
for requiring a proposal to proceed to ballot.  Of course, there should
always be the position that the administrator/speaker/whatever we call the
person collating the ballot can pass anything on to ballot should they chose
so.  This results in an energy barrier as well as a quantum tunneling
possibility, to analogize the idea to physics.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss