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

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

I can agree with that, but if it remove quorum requirement from
proposals and destroy the grenade. It was the grenade that prompted it
in the first place.

As a side note, I think many of the RPs are too complex and are trying
to fix everything before a restart. I don't think there will be enough
time to refine what is needed in a way that appeals to a majority.
There are a lot of great ideas suggested so far, and even more things
even above and beyond what has be proposed could use some tweaking.
But I don't think doing it in a monolithic proposal should be done.
Some of the clever tricks to get around this can just lead to more
problems. The worst thing is to have players contesting actions of a
refresh proposal.

I like Wooble's RP the most so far because it cleans up what caused
the problems, that is it. It doesn't contain any issues that could be
contested when implemented. Only thing is that there may be no voting
for nweek 134 since you could have at a maximum of 24 hours to get
proposals in, maybe less depending on when the emergency is over.

Creating the pseudo player of "The Nomic" is too clever. I may have
missed something in the discussion about using this trick, but
couldn't someone just change their name to "The Nomic" after the
restart and then retract those proposals?

- Hose

On Nov 28, 2007 1:38 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss