Re: [spoon-discuss] Draft 2: Less is More: Voting

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/22/02 at 10:45 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>A player may not vote if e joined the game less than one nday prior to the
>beginning of voting. A player may not vote if e is On Leave. A Player may
>not vote if e is Dead.

Wanna throw proxies in here somewhere?

>[[ I left out the requirement that PVs be publicly announced. Seems silly.
>]]

I dunno...some who are in cahoots with the absentee player might be reassured by being told e cast at least some sort of vote.

>Proposals are processed in increasing integral order of serial number with
>respect to each other, but are otherwise considered to occur
>simultaneously, in the "instant" between the end of one nweek and the
>beginning of the next nweek.
>
>[[ I'm trying to avoid things like: if p857 passes, having to count its
>effects for PART of a ballot, but otherwise allow proposals to do things
>like "if X passes, do this too". Suggestions on the wording are especially
>welcome. ]]

Problem with multiple proposals that modify the same rule, or parts of the same rule.  Aside from that, is it your desire that proposals in nweek X abide by the rules as of nweek X, and changes to the rules only take effect as of the beginning of nweek X+1?

>I. Administrative Veto
>
>If the Administrator is not also a player, e may Veto any proposal. If
>more than 75% of the votes cast for a proposal are affirmative votes, the
>Veto has no effect. Otherwise, the proposal is deemed to have failed.

If you don't specifically not count Abstain votes for the purposes of the above, players may simply choose to leave gaps in their ballots, thus causing "abstention votes" that are in fact not passed.

>Regardless of whether The Administrator is also a Player, The
>Administrator may Veto a proposal which, in eir sole judgment, is
>technically infeasible to implement or which would cause grievous and
>irreparable damage to the game as a whole. Such a veto is not subject to
>the 75% override condition above, but is subject to the Call For Inquiry
>process.

Dude.  This ain't imperial, dude. :)

>Repeal Rules [[ 15, ]] 20, 23, 30, 32, 124, 294, 403, 580, 629, 706.
>
>[[ 706 is the ala carte rule. it's never come up either, and if it did,
>it'd be a pain in the ass. even more than society props, which drive me
>mad. ]]

Like I said, it's come up once, and I can see it coming up again.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss