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

["Aaron Coquet" <farfromunique@xxxxxxxxx>]

In theory, yes. But i think that name change would EASILY be deemed to
be "Confusing or intentionally misleading", and so disallowed.

On Nov 28, 2007 10:55 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
Aaron C
"H. P. Lovecraft is Rock and Roll" -- Neil Gaiman
Don't Panic!
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss