Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sensei]

I would interpret unanimous as everyone who is "in". But that's just me, and it's also asking for a lot, since we aren't having people who don't post for 48 hours be out.

[andy_t_roo]

since dead people can't vote, you can be absent for as many days as you have money.

[quinnr]

unanimous as in 0 votes against, or as in every eligible person must vote for it, given that proposals time-out ...

Every player that votes for it must have a "yes" vote, not every player in the game, IIRC. The rule is worded more particularly than I am.

[quinnr]

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

Or...not. Well, that could be interesting.

[andy_t_roo]

what about people violating rule 105:  Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes

[quinnr]

Hrmm. Both of those are pretty much artifacts from the game being a round-the-table type deal instead of online, unfortunately, wasn't careful enough in considering which ones to include, I guess.

[RAM]

against 327
For 328
Porpoisal: Ammend rule 206 to include 206b: The 2-day period which determines when a vote finalises and when new proposals may be made shall commence from the moment at which the proposal is entered into the first post, which shall be recorded next to the proposal's number.

[andy_t_roo]

RAM, i'd prefer the 2 days to be determined by the time-stamp of my post, as that is recorded; the timestamp of the edit entering it into the first post isn't (at the moment) and it means that the proposal frequency is determined by how often quinnr updates the head post, not by my own actions.

[RAM]

I, on the other hand, would prefer it if everyone had 2 days to vote...

[Person]

327. Against.
328. For.

So, no ones planning on handing out anti-money eh. Good, good. That probably works on mutually assured destruction somehow, now that I think about it more. I'd propose a transmution/amendment, but I can't for a little while. Meh.

[a1s]

I think technically you could only make one immutable at once, due to the way rule 103 is worded only in the singular. I'll let it slide if nobody has any objections, in the interest of fun, however.

I don't think that's an artefact of the crude wording, but rather a useful mechanic. You need to be really sure that you want to waste your proposal rights on something that will bring limited benefit( and in case of I2M transmutation will probably fail anyway). This makes immutable rules much more important.

But note that, according to rule 109, the vote must be unanimous to change rules mutability. I am just pointing this out mostly so I don't forget, really, but it's a nice thing to know while voting if you missed it.

nope, simple majority will suffice:

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

[Person]

I think technically you could only make one immutable at once, due to the way rule 103 is worded only in the singular. I'll let it slide if nobody has any objections, in the interest of fun, however.

I don't think that's an artefact of the crude wording, but rather a useful mechanic. You need to be really sure that you want to waste your proposal rights on something that will bring limited benefit( and in case of I2M transmutation will probably fail anyway). This makes immutable rules much more important.

But note that, according to rule 109, the vote must be unanimous to change rules mutability. I am just pointing this out mostly so I don't forget, really, but it's a nice thing to know while voting if you missed it.

nope, simple majority will suffice:

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

At first I had difficulty understanding what you pointed out, but then I noticed. Its very subtle. The unanimous vote part of the rule only seems to apply when transmuting immutable to mutable, but not the other way around.

[a1s]

I, on the other hand, would prefer it if everyone had 2 days to vote...

can we split the difference and allow people 48 hours to vote, but let them submit new rules based on timestamp?
(so basically I'd like for it to be this:)

Ammend rule 206 to include 206b: The 2-day period which determines when a vote finalises and when new proposals may be made shall commence from the moment at which the proposal is entered into the first post, which shall be recorded next to the proposal's number.

327: for
328: for

and since most of you think 327 is unneeded (and when 328 passes, mutable rules will have even less permanence), I shall submit this very legal proposal:
proposal: The following voters are designated as "pillars of the community" and shall receive a grant of 20 money upon this proposal passing:
a1s,andy_t_roo,Person,RAM,Scelly9,Sensei,timferius.

[Person]

As a side note quinnr is actually changing the rules numbers to lower ones after they pass, probably so that we don't have weird empty sets of numbers. We've got quite a few proposals to pass before we hit 230. It's still important, just not quite as urgent. We do need to transmute those first few mutable ones asap.

[andy_t_roo]

Person: clarification for you -- proposals are numbered from 300, rules are numbered from 200.