Re: [s-d] [s-b] Billy Pilgrim's Refresh Proposal

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 14, 2007 7:01 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> This proposal is no longer necessary, as only the players who voted in
> the previous nweek gain the Active property. The number of Active
> Players was excessively large last nweek, which caused problems. This
> nweek we didn't have Quorum issues - we never /made/ it to Quorum
> issues. I'm opposed to making further changes to the Quorum numbers
> until we've had a chance to try out our CURRENT ruleset.
> <http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss>
>

Last week, the issue was the change in the rules that allowed anyone to
become active by posting to the Public Fourm. That was a bad idea (and yes,
it was mine). It was in response to the creation of the grenade when that
week there were only 5 active players and it could block 3 votes. Quorum was
also established for voting in the same proposal--it was only on
Consultations before. My current thinking is that we should have a Quorum,
but low enough not to hinder the standard voting process. Greater than half
of Active is a little high. The minimum of two makes it so that one vote
can't get a proposal passed. Quorum on Consultations is no longer an issue
since that has been removed. Of course, we could go back to the ruleset
before these recent changes and remove Quorum on voting.

Also, you said that you are opposed to making further changes to the Quorum
numbers, but they have never been changed (well, at least since
12-Jan-2007).

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