Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Snap Votes

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd use the Support mechanism rather than creating a new mechanism of
declaration by a quorum.

Other than that, I'm in favor of this.  Although the unique slow pace
of the proposal cycle is attractive, it does make dealing with urgent
problems a bit ugly.

On Nov 26, 2007 1:00 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal entitled "Snap Votes":
>
> {
> In Rule 2-2, at the end of the section under the sub-heading "Submission and
> Revision", add another sub-heading that reads "Hurrying Votes"
>
> In Rule 2-2, under the sub-heading "Hurrying Votes", add the following text:
> {
> A Particular Voting Period is an interval, over which Players may vote on
> one or more Open Proposals, that does not coincide with the Voting Period
> for a given nweek.
>
> When the clock is On, as a Game Action, any Player may declare that a
> specific Pending Proposal should be "Hurried". If a Quorum of Players
> declares that a given Proposal should be Hurried, the Particular Voting
> Period for that Proposal begins at the beginning of the nday after which
> Quorum was reached, and ends at the end of the 4th nday after Quorum was
> reached. At the start of the Particular Voting Period, the Prending Proposal
> in Question becomes Open.
>
> At the end of the Particular Voting Period, votes are tallied and culled in
> the same manner as at the end of an nweek.
> }
> }
>
> Billy Pilgrim
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss