301 (Robin) (Rejected)

[michaelenstone]

Robin has proposed the following rule:

301: to allow the game to progress, if any eligible voter has not voted on a proposal within 24hrs of its proposal, their votes will be assumed to be in favour of the proposal

[Neil]

Mike:

Should this rule be amended to allow for people to notify the group of absence and/or nominate a proxy in the case of absence?

Robin:

So... Mike... The series of actions is now:

1) All vote on the proposal as it is worded
2) If you don't like it, as worded, vote against
3) remember, we can accept it, and then add additional wording / additional rules as required later, so you could propose the amendment below on your turn

We can debate, but I don't think i can amend the wording once proposed

I'm inclined to agree, there are no steps within "proposing one rule-change and having it voted on" in rule 202.

[Neil]

I vote against.

[michaelenstone]

I would propose that rule 111 implies a period of debate on a rule before the vote is called

[Neil]

You're right.

[Robin_C]

So debate, but no amendment of the proposal.

As such, the idea is to ensure we all don't get held up waiting for someone to vote. Proxy is a good idea; I can't change the proposal though. Perhaps we can add after?

Anyway, I vote for

[Neil]

As Mike's pointed out, 111 leaves space for debate and amendment.

[michaelenstone]

I would suggest that the point of debate would be to give the proposer the opportunity for the rule to be amended. In my view the rules currently allow for the following structure:
- proposal
- debate
- call to vote
the rules aren't clear as to who calls the vote but I would suggest it be the proposer of the rule.

At this point in the game rules can only be enacted by unanimous vote. As such our choice us to get an adjudication from Matt (as the judge) or declare the vote lost on the basis of the vote against from Neil.

[Neil]

I agree on openness of structure (based on 111).

So the proposal fails on unanimity, but 105 means Matt must vote for the vote to have happened. How Matt votes is immaterial.

I don't see what Matt would need to adjudicate.

[Robin_C]

If only we had some rule that could deal with Matt being slow to vote...

[Robin_C]

(and how Matt votes is not immatieral)

[Neil]

You're right. You get points if he votes in favour of a proposal which can not possibly pass. I think we should assume Matt votes against for that reason alone.

[michaelenstone]

Robin can still call for a vote on an alternative form of the rule should he wish.

In it's current form I vote against the rule.

[Robin_C]

So if I can propose an alternative form, I go for:

"301: if any eligible voter has not voted on a proposal within 24hrs of its proposal, their votes will be assumed to be in favour of the proposal. Alternatively, a voter may delegate his vote(s) to another voter, by making this action, and its duration, explicit an any time"

[michaelenstone]

I vote for the revised proposal

[Robin_C]

Me too

Has anyone actually told Matt we're playing?

[Neil]

My vote stands.

[Neil]

Robin's proposal fails.
He gets 7 points for positive votes (301-291)*(2/3).
He loses 10 points for a failed proposal.
Robin has -3 points.
My go.

[Robin_C]

Ah - didn't see the failed proposal bit. Never mind.

[michaelenstone]

Just to Clarify, turn order is alphabetical on the basis of surname. E coming before H it is my go!

[Robin_C]

I think we need two more forums, which I can't build for some reason:
1) Scoring, to keep it separate
2) General discussion, so we can talk about (for example):

"210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply."

[Sponsored content]