Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Speedier Actions

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 5, 2007 11:24 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Does this conflict with Proposal 210?

I don't think it needs to. If this passes 210 might still be useful if
players want to increase the Pause and no one objects but it might
take more than a day for enough people to Support that change by
Unanimous Consent under this rule.  In that case it might be
attractive to skip a day of Pause using 210's framework.

Besides if they have a Conflict and both pass but 210 has marginally
more support, this would Lose even though it got enough votes and
didn't really address only the specific issue 210 addresses.  In any
case, I'd like to see Conflicts used only when 2 proposals would
create contradictions in the ruleset; this would create redundancy
rather than contradiction.

On the other hand, if you think 210 would be unnecessary if this
passes and you also think it will pass (and you support it,
obviously), you can withdraw 210 and I'll agree to liquidate any
points I get for this passing and give you half the macks I receive
for it (since I believe transferring points isn't possible?)
-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss