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

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also like the side effect of only allowing Players who have been
around long enough and cared enough to vote in the previous nweek to
become Priests.  Obviously voting once doesn't guarantee that a player
actually pays enough attention to know all of the previous caselaw and
the intricacies of the current ruleset, but it probably doesn't hurt.

On Nov 28, 2007 2:14 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 All rules between 3-12 and 3-14 inclusive are repealed.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
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss