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

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

On 12/5/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2007 12:21 PM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On 12/5/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Create a new rule entitled "Unanimous Consent" with the following
> text:
> > > {{{
> > > If the rules allow a Player to perform a game action with X support
> > > and without Y objections, for any values of X and Y, he may, at his
> > > option, instead perform that action after obtaining Unanimous Consent
> > > to perform that action.  This rule defers to any rule that allows and
> > > action and explicitly forbids the use of Unanimous Consent.
> > >
> > > A Player obtains Unanimous Consent for an action by announcing in a
> > > Public Forum the action he intends to take and the fact that he's
> > > seeking Unanimous Consent.  The action takes place when a simple
> > > majority of the Active Players have announced their support for the
> > > Action in the Public Forum if and only if no Player has announced an
> > > objection to the action in the meantime.  If any Player does object to
> > > the action in this interval, the action does not take place,
> > > regardless of the threshhold of objections that would have been
> > > required to stop the action had it been attempted without Unanimous
> > > Consent.  The Player attempting the action may not perform the same
> > > action by Unanimous Consent in the same nweek, although he may perform
> > > the action with X support and without Y objections through a new
> > > announcement.
> > > }}}
> > >
> > > }}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have noticed that most of the actions "without Y objections" have a
> > relatively low value of Y. In that case, if you try and do something,
> say,
> > without 2 objections, getting half of the active players to support you
> does
> > not mean there will not be 2 others that might object.
>
> This is true, but using this process the players who might object
> would still have the opportunity to do so, as long as they're quick
> enough to do it before all of the Active Players who support the
> action show up to support it.  I think getting a majority of Active
> Players to support anything will probably actually take a fairly long
> time, although the hope is that in many uncontroversial cases this
> time could be shorter than a full 2 ndays.



So your argument there is that people will have the time to object since
getting unanimous consent would take longer than 2 days anyways? Isn't this
a tad contradictory with a proposal titled "speedier actions"? ;-]

What if there's a rush of activity and, because, say, of a time zone
difference, or IRL interference, and half the active players consent to the
action before the poor dude who wants to object gets a chance to have its
say? ( I am thinking, at the moment, of Ministries takeover, as they are one
of the few rules where the idea of objection is present, but cases could
arise later, although you do make room for the possibility of explicitely
forbidding the UC method)


As far as X support is concerned, your proposal makes it acutally harder to
get the action done, unless X is higher than half the number of active
players, which, by the look of the player list and the existing rules
mentioning consent, would seem pretty rare to me...
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss