Re: [s-d] [s-b] Aaron C's Refresh Porposal

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My argument is: when faced with a rule that has had unintended negative
side-effects, we should repeal the rule, not make new ones.

0x44 wrote:
> Reducing the number of active players based on the previous nweeks
> voting record also reduces the number required to make quorum. Last
> nweek we had ten voters, that leaves us with a quorum size of five. This
> nweek we have sixteen active players for a quorum size of eight.
> Lowering that to 1/3 still leaves us with a larger quorum size.
> Increasing the number of players was a bad idea, as experience has borne
> out.
>
>
>
> Mike McGann wrote:
>   
>> Quorum just needs to be reduced, I put in for 1/3. If you have 10
>> players you should be able to muster 3 votes. As it is now, you need 6
>> which is excessive. It probably does need to be changed so that votes
>> of abstain count towards reaching a quorum and if you vote for at
>> least one proposal, anything you don't vote for is an automatic
>> abstain. Prop 156 was in response to the Hand Grenade. There is also
>> the issue of quorum for judgment claims. But, this should all be done
>> and discussed after the restart.
>>
>> If anything, make everyone inactive and force everyone to post
>> something to regain their active status.
>>
>> - Hose
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2007 1:01 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> We really need to repeal Proposal 156's changes to Rule 3-5. That caused
>>> our quorum problems, repealing the changes would fix the quorum problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> On 11/27/07, Aaron Coquet <farfromunique@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> All players who have been players for one full nWeek gain the active
>>>>> property.
>>>>> All players who have not been players for one full nWeek cease to be
>>>>> players.
>>>>> [[This gives everyone who already is a player a chance to be one, and if
>>>>> there is debate about whether or not anyone is a player, they can try to
>>>>> join again.]]
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I understand the motivation for this except do we really need to makes all
>>>> older players active? It will make getting anything at all done practically
>>>> impossible in the nweek following the emergency because it will be so hard
>>>> to get quorum on any proposal. This active clause should imo be removed or
>>>> quorum lowered alongside it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I do like the distinction between offensive and registered actions.
>>>> quite clear.
>>>>
>>>> Billy Pilgrim
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>   

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