In post 72, Ircher wrote:I linked to some of the past ones I've done. It varies quite a bit. I think last time, we only had 5, but there are times when there are like 9-11 players.
With those sorts of numbers I don't think we will face significant problems with diseconomies of scale, then.
In post 73, StrangerCoug wrote:VOTE: Nay 311, at least until the points thing is sorted out.
Points are how one wins the game. It is baked into the initial ruleset. I'm setting somw groundwork for a new currency, so that we might get some exchange going on.
On second thought it may be undesirable to allow people to trade each other their points in the form of shiny rocks (facilitates kingmaking) but at least a one way points into shiny rocks exchange might introduce interesting strategic decisions
Shiny rocks themselves aren't worth much. They're meant to be a small token for gaining some points, and aren't meant to be spent in large quantities, certainly not meant to be used to gain more points.
===Active Proposals===
Use the following format (and please make sure to have the initial space on each line!):
Proposal ### (Post #) by Username: Text body.
Yea - User1 (#), User2 (#), ...
Nay - User3 (#), User4 (#), ...
Not Voting - User5
----
Proposal 303 (Post 19) by Jake The Wolfie: The Monarch is defined to be exactly one player at a time, who has special abilities that may later be defined. In addition, The Monarch may choose to abdicate their power to a player of their choice. If more than 3/4ths of all active non-Monarch players vote to overthrow the Monarch, then a new Monarch shall be picked with the old Monarch being ineligible for being picked. If a Monarch becomes inactive, a new Monarch shall be picked.
If no player is currently the Monarch, whoever has the most points above 10 and is eligible shall become the Monarch. All inactive players are considered ineligible for becoming the Monarch.
Yea - Jake The Wolfie (19)
Nay - lendunistus (21), Deimos27 (42)
Abstain - Ircher (33), StrangerCoug (41)
Not Voting - tris, Charles510
Proposal 307 (Post 31) by lendunistus: Amend rule 202
An inactive player is any player who hasn't posted for 72 hours in a row.
Yea - lendunistus (31), StrangerCoug (38), Deimos27 (42)
Nay - Ircher (33)
Not Voting - tris, Jake The Wolfie, Charles510
Proposal 308 (Post 43) by StrangerCoug: Whenever a player makes a proposal, that player automatically votes Yea thereon by default.
Yea - StrangerCoug (43)
Nay - Deimos27 (45), Ircher (47), lendunistus (48)
Not Voting - tris, Jake The Wolfie, Charles510
Proposal 310 (Post 53, edited in post 57) by StrangerCoug: Players may withdraw proposals they have made that they no longer support by bolding "Withdraw ###", where ### is the number of the proposal that the player wishes to withdraw. A withdrawn proposal automatically fails. If this proposal passes while Proposal 308 is still pending, that proposal shall automatically be withdrawn and fail.
Yea - StrangerCoug (57), Deimos27 (62), Ircher (66)
Nay -
Not Voting - tris, lendunistus, Jake The Wolfie, Charles510
Proposal 311 (Post 66) by Jake The Wolfie: Shiny Rocks are a type of Currency. Each player gains 10 Shiny Rocks for each point that they gain, including retroactively.
Yea - Jake The Wolfie (66)
Nay - StrangerCoug (73), lendunistus (81)
Not Voting - Ircher, tris, Charles510, Deimos27
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
StrangerCoug is abstaining on 303, but you would need his vote for it to pass. So the proposal ends up rejected because you need 4 to pass 303 but have 3 voting against it and 1 abstaining.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
It depends on your interpretation. That's not how I have typically done it in the past, but I do see that we don't have a rule that clarifies that scenario. The way I see it is that a proposal passes when it reaches a majority of votes needed; however, it fails as soon as it can no longer pass. You are free to re-propose the proposal as there is no such rule against such. This keeps proposals that are on the edge of getting the requisite votes but unable to from staying in limbo forever.
Proposal 312: If there is a disagreement about the application of a rule or an action that occurs, a player (hereby referred to the initiator) may request a more detailed explanation of the rules involved from the person who applied the rule or took the action (hereby referred to the executor). If the explanation does not satisfy the initiator, the initiator may appeal the decision to the group as a whole by posting in bold, "I request an executive review for [link to dispute]." (This process is called an "executive review".) Players besides the initiator and the executor may then vote (using vote tags) to agree with the initiator or agree with teh executor. Whichever receives a simple majority of votes becomes the final verdict. Only one such executive review may be active at any time.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Proposal 313: A player may vote "[Yea/Nay] with reservations" on any proposal made after this rule, which shall henceforth be known as a vote with reservations. A player who does so should, but is not required to, explain the reservations the player holds that prevent an unqualified vote. A vote with reservations is indistinct from a normal vote for the purposes of calculating the number of votes needed to pass a proposal.
I liked this rule from last time, and I think it'll encourage discussion on the merits of proposals.
Perhaps, but things like that can be annotated in the change history, etc. Furthermore, sometimes even if something is useless, it may help steer things in the right direction just by being there.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
I have a draft proposal for another currency idea, but even though there's room for one more proposal, I already have two active and I don't want to be seen as keeping other people from making proposals.
VOTE: Aye 312 VOTE: Nay 313
I don't really see 313 as necessary either. We are capable of using our words to explain opinions and reservations when we have them.
