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

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 28 nov. 07, à 18:55, Mike McGann a écrit :

> 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 agree with you on thaat, my philosophy is that a RP should aim at the 
bare minimum and then let deeper changes be discussed independently. 
however we are in for 9 days of pause, so I can see how players 
(inculding myself) are attracted to packages that implement deeper 
changes along the wya, rather than having to wait a full nWeek.

This is why I suggested my meta proposal, to try and immediatly get out 
of the pause in a soft emergency mode, and let us discuss deep changes 
on an individual, per-proposal basis. But I did not get any support to 
get this exceptional shortening of the pause, and I can see how it is 
controversial to try and alter emergency rules on an exceptional basis. 
Personnaly, I think I'm going to retract the Meta proposal, and go for 
BobTHJ's RP....

>
> 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.
>

Some RPs have suggested that proposals submitted early enoughto be 
listed still stand, unless explicitely retracted. The fact there is a 
pause do prevent us from sumbitting proposal, but not from thinking 
about the existing ones, and there is already a lot of them, including 
a quorum decrease...

> 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?

I think the RP you are referring to mentions that "The Nomic" Ceases to 
exist immediately afterwards...


-- 
Will

>
> - 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
>

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