Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Carthrat]

Voting's finished!

<-->

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

1. AndrewRogue - Yea
2. EvilTom - Yea
3. Excal - Yea
4. Jo'ou Ranbu - Yea
5. Smodge - Yea
6. Sopko - Yea
7. VerySlightlyMad - Nay

The proposal was REJECTED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Five

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -7
2. EvilTom: 11
3. Excal: 12
4. Jo'ou Ranbu: 11
5. Smodge: 0
6. Sopko: 0
7. VerySlightlyMad: 0

It is Smodge's turn! Please propose a change to the rules! Your rule-change number is 305. (ModNinjaSwap was done; Smodge needs to go before Soppy. Which is actually my fault because his name is technically HunterSopko and he should've gone before Snow, but I used his nickname like this. So. Um. My mistake, sorry! I guess he's Soppy for the purposes of this game. >_<)

[Hunter Sopko]

I call discrimination. I demand satisfaction! ::Gloveslap!::

[Excal]

So...  vetoed by the person who showed the necessity of the proposal in question, with only one vague assertion against it beforehand...  And no real commentary on the discussion as it happened, or even after it happened.  Yeah, I'm happy about that.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

I'm even happier about that, as VSM didn't show up at any point to argue what was wrong. I'd be fine trying to accomodate his concerns, too. ._.

[EvilTom]

Well. I can't wait for his turn. I can tell you from now, I'm voting against VSM's proposal, no matter what it is.

[Hunter Sopko]

Well. I can't wait for his turn. I can tell you from now, I'm voting against VSM's proposal, no matter what it is.

Ahhh spite. It makes the world go 'round.

[Veryslightlymad]

My proposal is totally going to be "Evil Tom Wins the Game"

EDIT
For what it's worth, I somehow didn't realize that a proposal needed unanimous approval to go through.

[Smodge13]

VSM why did you propose no?

For now i'd like to submit the proposal that was the same as Jo'ou

Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

At least until i find out why VSM voted no, any other reason than you didn't think it required unanimity? and even so if you agreed with the rule why vote no?

[Smodge13]

A rule that limits the time on the voting phase is definately needed.

[Carthrat]

Dicussion module loading. Please discuss seriously and without reservation. Remember, real politician shout. 48 hours until the next voting phase!

305 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

[AndrewRogue]

... Uh...well. I can see you're going to make friends in this game!
I know you're annoyed that your proposal didn't go through last time, but you have noone to blame for that but yourself.
If this isn't a matter of spite but merely blatant selfishness, then you're not going to get your way; not now, not ever.

...

This is a rule proposal that is fair to everyone, because it applies to everyone equally. You can either play constructively, or you can be a self-centred git; if you're going to ruin it for everyone, fine. But you can expect to lose 10 points every round for the rest of the game, because nobody is going to appreciate your selfishness and unwillingness to compromise, so they're certainly not going to show you any courtesy.

*whistles innocently*

Seriously. At the least, be an ironfisted individual who at least puts some form of negotiation out on the table. ^_~

[Veryslightlymad]

I dislike the combination of being penalized for not voting, and the stipulation that voting must be in a 24 hour window. One of those must change or my vote will not budge.

>Shrug<

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

You can vote during -any period-, be the Discussion phase, be the Voting phase. Considering that, I find the 24-hour limit entirely reasonable.

[Veryslightlymad]

The proposal can be modified during the discussion phase.

EDIT
Meaning, I'd like a buffer where I know what I've gotten into.

[Excal]

Smodge, you probably should have gone for a vote away from majority rule instead of trying to get the same thing through again.  As it is, if VSM isn't willing to negotiate, then neither am I.  24 hours is more than reasonable for an action that takes five minutes from the day.  And I am currently not intending to vote for any measure that will extend the deadline past 24 hours.

[Hunter Sopko]

If this must pass, we can just reintroduce this once the voting gets changed to majority to force it past VSM. Simple as that. You're still getting the points either way if it doesn't pass.

That said, the 24 hour period is entirely reasonable. I think Rat will be on you MORE to vote if you only have 24 hours.

::Highfives Andy::

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

I also like what Excal proposes. Taking down the need for an absolute majority for a ruling is also among the procedural things we need to perform, and this may be more urgent. The 24-hour limit -is- the buffer, and if you honestly can't be assed to give the five/ten minutes to read a thread phase at the current time, with this game's pacing? *Shrug.* This isn't Mafia, and 36 hours total to vote is a fine threshold. If it eventually becomes unwieldy, it can be changed again. So, I guess it's just better to go the roundabout way.

[Veryslightlymad]

Voting around the Thanksgiving block is going to be tricky at best; I do not want to be penalized for missing a fast vote during that time period.

[Excal]

And by thanksgiving, do you mean a weekend, or a whole week or two?

[Carthrat]

Smodge forfeited! In the interests of continuing, let's skip his turn.

It is now Sopko's turn! Please propose a change to the rules! Your rule-number is 306.

[Hunter Sopko]

Sorry for the delay! Been getting ready for the mini-meet. I had an idea, but rather than clusterfuck the game up further, I'll keep it simple.

306- Repeal rule 208 "Players who do not vote in any given turn will lose 10 points."

This is in preparation for the eventual passing of the previous amendment, hopefully it will persuade VSM to accept it if there's no risk of penalty. Originally I wanted to try to just add this onto the previous amendment, since it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say that two rules can't be changed by one rule, just that only one rule can be proposed per turn and what constitutes a rule change. With no "or" qualifiers specifying between them, technically you could change more than one rule per turn. Rat's judgement was otherwise, but said I can put this forward to you guys >.>

[Excal]

I'm just curious.  Why this movement instead of a change to how many votes is needed to pass a motion?

[Hunter Sopko]

Huh. Cause I thought that the unanimous ended at the end of this set of turns, and not the next one. I may just do that.

[Veryslightlymad]

For what it's worth, I would totally vote for that.

[Excal]

And I've yet to see why I should.  There's little benefit to rewarding people for not playing a game they've signed up for.