Re: [s-d] [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, the point of the Oracularities vote would be to give a quick decision to avoid a "quantum state" situation (although the vote would take three or four ndays) by resolving the problem quickly (I apologize for redundancy), so no, I do not think quorum should be required.  There probably should be a  minimum number of votes, however, to prevent the Chairman/Oracle and Supporters from dominating.

What is an ex aequo? (Wow, this post has six q's!)


----- Original Message ----
From: William P. Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:54:29 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal


Le 27 nov. 07, à 22:38, Justin Ahmann a écrit :

> Another revision:
> {Append to the section of Rule 2-2 entitled "Voting":
>
> {
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, the Oracle or the Chairman may 
> declare a Voting Period for Oracularities only.  This impromptu Voting 
> Period begins once the second Player to pledge his Support for this 
> Game Action does so, and ends three ndays later.  In all other ways 
> this Voting Period behaves like an nweekly Voting Period.
> }
> [[I'm not entirely sure yet how to fit this in with Conflicts, 
> Dependencies, and Vote Power.  Any suggestions?]]
>

Would there be a quorum to be reached on Oracularities votes? what if 
there is an ex aequo? 
  
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss