Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Two-tier precedence

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have to say I support the idea of reforming precedence like that.

I've got mixed feelings about 2/3 support. I've been toying with the idea of
proposing something along these lines for a really long time. Even of
instituting something like a Constitution of B, which is really complicated
to amend and directs everything else. But then again requiring 2/3 support
to mess with essential rules might make B a little less... crazy... Not sure
we want that?

BP

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Proposal:  Two-tier precedence
>
> This proposal has no effect unless its Vote Count for FOR is more than
> twice its Vote Count for AGAINST.  /* i.e. whether it would itself pass
> the higher Strength threshold that it would add to 5E33 */
>
> Make Rule 5E0 (In Case of Emergency) Essential.
>
> Make Rule 5E9 (Rule Precedence) Essential, and amend it to read:
>
>      If two rules contradict each other, then:
>
>        a) If exactly one is Essential, then that one takes precedence.
>
>        b) Otherwise, if exactly one claims precedence over the other,
>           then that one takes precedence.
>
>        c) Otherwise, the one with the lower number takes precedence.
>
>      This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules that determine
>      precedence of Rules.
>
>      A rule "deferring precedence" to another rule is equivalent to the
>      deferred-to rule claiming precedence over the deferring rule.
>
> Amend Rule 5E33 (Proposals) by appending, after this text:
>
>      A Proposal's Stamina is F+A and its Strength is F-A, where F is
>      its Vote Count for FOR and A is its Vote Count for AGAINST.
>
> this text:
>
>      However, if the Proposal would create, amend, repeal, or set the
>      Essential switch of any rule that would be Essential before and/or
>      after its passage, then its Strength is F-2A instead.
>
> /* i.e. they must beat a 2/3 majority rather than just a 1/2 majority;
> however, this does not apply to any other method of amending rules, e.g.
> Refresh Proposals, Tweaks, dictatorships... */
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss