Rule Proposal 27

This proposal defines an active player as a player that has voted at least once.

If a proposal has at least half of the active players voting yes on it, and no one voting no, then it passes, regardless of the deadline.

/* Proposer Notes:
My opinion is that if half of the players all agree on something, then most likely it is going to pass, regardless of how much longer until the deadline. We can pass the proposals faster.
*/

Vote AYE
This can help speed the process up. Nice touch not including a majority of NAYs. I approve of that, because (imo) it's easier to convince someone to change their mind for the proposal than against. Of course, someone else might convince me otherwise...

Well, with this proposal you would need, not only a majority, but an unanimous vote, a complete agreement to activate its ability. Even 1 person who publically disagrees will cause other proposals to not pass earlier.

That won't work for Nays, since the proposer auto-votes yes, although I guess we could count the proposer as an exception.

chenhsi wrote:That won't work for Nays, since the proposer auto-votes yes, although I guess we could count the proposer as an exception.

The proposer could be convinced to disagree, seeing as it is still possible to change your vote.

Vote: No

This is a horrible idea

Bah! Why?

vote:no
I think the definition of active player needs to be tweaked a bit. I could vote once then never come back.

Also, I would be more inclined to vote yes if it were a 2/3 majority.

Cybele wrote:Bah! Why?

Suppose we get to a point where Nomic Political Parties form. This rule could be used to members of a party to zerg rush their votes onto Proposals that favor them before members of the other parties can have any say

Fair enough.

Pyrodwarf: We can amend the proposal. Do you see any other objections?

UltimaAvalon: True, but I doubt that any party would have a majority of the players.

Well, UA brings up a good point. The definition of active player needs to be changed, IMO. More like: "A player that has posted in the last week."

What about a player that has voted in the last week?

And we can always amend the proposal.

pyrodwarf wrote:Also, I would be more inclined to vote yes if it were a 2/3 majority.

Have there been any proposal that has passed with a 2/3 majority? Only like 1/2 and those were close enough to the deadline.

vote:NO because atm, if you look straight at the Player's list, a certain amount of people don't have a single post. Also, when it's night time 9where I live), is when all of the people that are active become active, so my proposals would be gone before I could defend them.

pyrodwarf wrote:vote:no
I think the definition of active player needs to be tweaked a bit. I could vote once then never come back.

Also, I would be more inclined to vote yes if it were a 2/3 majority.

I agree with 2/3s completely.

Vote: No

animorpherv1 wrote:vote:NO because atm, if you look straight at the Player's list, a certain amount of people don't have a single post.

Which is why only players who have posted count.

animorpherv1 wrote:Also, when it's night time 9where I live), is when all of the people that are active become active, so my proposals would be gone before I could defend them.

Umm... this proposal only affects proposals with yes votes, not ones with no votes.

Yeah, they could pass prematurely, but not fail before you get to defend them.

Currently 3-4.

We can always amend this later you know. The only argument I see right now is the 2/3 as opposed to 1/2, all the arguments have been defeated.

Well, if you need to repropose, I'll vote aye again.

Vote: No

Keep it simple. No need to rush change.

Aye

sounds good

Vote: No

4-7, I believe.