Re: [s-d] Are we playing?

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Eugene Meidinger wrote:

> So in no specific order:
>
> Players may make drafts at any time.
> They must add them to a drafts page.

I wonder if this is necessary. Maybe we could run the whole game  
through email, as has been suggested before.

> Drafts can be revoked at any time.
> If a draft has not been revoked then it can be turned into a proposal.
> To convert a draft you need a nomination and a second.
> The player to nominate must do the admining.

Presumably the drafter has to be the one to turn a draft into a  
proposal? I certainly wouldn't want my drafts becoming props before I  
was ready for them to do so.

> This includes announcing, counting votes, and implementing the rule.
> After a period of time such as 5 ndays person may can voting to a  
> close.
> If the person who ends the voting isn't the nominator then the work  
> may
> default to em.
> After the announcement of closing, people have a 2 nday buffer to  
> still
> vote.

Why?

> Laws will have an attribute of closer, nominator, and drafter.
> Responsibility to do any administrating falls in that order
> respectively.
> We need a way to determine if a person has been negligent and the next
> one down the line should do it or if just all three are allowed to  
> take
> the responsibility.

Passing it down the line is probably enough; perhaps it becomes  
something anyone can do after a while.

One thing I like about your system is that even if a proposal passes,  
it won't actually take effect until somebody takes the time to add it  
to the rules.

What happens if two people try to take responsibility simultaneously?  
What happens if the effects of two proposals depend on the order in  
which they are implemented? I don't like it when the game benefits  
those who are able to be at a machine at odd hours...

> There are offices which may be proposed and created.
>
>
> That's all I can think of for now.

There's Justice as well. I'd say we should use voting-based CFIs/CFJs/ 
RFJs/Whatever they're called. The Plaintiff gives a statement/ 
question and names a defendant, and then must count the votes and  
announce the result emself, just like for a proposal. This should  
stop frivolous CFJs.


-- 
Wonko

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