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

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Players who are not active still get their vote power set to 1 on
Ballotday. The Active property only determines how many votes you need
to constitute a quorum, it doesn't determine who gets to vote.


Aaron Coquet wrote:
> I revise my revised refresh proposal thusly:
> {
> The day is set to nday 1: Breakday [[to give us more time for the next part]]
> All Pending proposals are marked as Historical with a win-state of
> Lost. No changes to points or wins are made as a result of this.
> The proposals which have just been marked as Historical are all
> automatically re-submitted by their original authors.
> All ministries are Vacated.
>
> All players lose the active property.
> All players who have not been players for one full nWeek cease to be players.
>
> [[This means that only people who are actually here will be included
> in the voting. In order to become Active, one must post to the PUBLIC
> forum. It can be as simple as a message that says "I become active".]]
>
> All Devices that exist, with the exception of the Holy Hand Grenade of
> Antioch, are transformed into the price that was paid for them in
> Mack, and are immediately given to the original purchaser. [[so that
> no one has any of the new devices which exist in a quantum state, and
> no money is lost on the deal.]]
>
> Al Blueprints are destroyed.
>
> All rules between 3-12 and 3-14 inclusive are repealed.
>
> A player is created with the name "The Nomic"
> "The Nomic" submits a proposal to add back rule 3-12
> "The Nomic" submits a proposal to add back rule 3-13
> "The Nomic" submits a proposal to add back rule 3-14
> "The Nomic" ceases to be a player.
>
> Create a new rule in section 1, called "Things not to do":
> {
> If an action is described, mentioned, or otherwise appears in the
> rules, it is known as a "Registered" action.
> If an action is prohibited or not allowed in the rules, it is known as
> an "Offensive" action.
>
> Offensive actions may not be taken.
> Registered actions can only be taken in a way that is in accordance
> with the rule or rules which describe or mention them, or in which
> they appear.
> }
>
> [[If i include a reversal of Prop 156, no one can vote in the first
> week, I think. ]]
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> 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