Re: [s-d] Are we playing?

[Eugene Meidinger <eugman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 01:42 -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 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.
Entirely possible, although I would think that be hard to track but you could argue we already have to do that.




> > 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 If a draft has not been revoked then it can be turned into a proposal.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.
Well I was thinking about the possibility of a person making a draft but
not being around too frequently so it'd be good for a player to be able
to turn it into law but they could just copy the draft so you are right.


> > 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.
Well The way I suggested it a vote could go on for weeks if there is a lull or nobody tries to close it.
as a result everyone could forget about the rule. It would be
unfortunate if there was a lull and someone could just close a vote when
things start back up and noone could vote on it.

A better system might require two people to close the vote just like it
takes two people to start it.
 


> > 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...

Well It should be that unless the person who closed the vote is to
implement it. If they give up that duty or the game understands them to
be inactive then the duty goes to the the proposer.

> > 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.

Sounds like a good idea.

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