Talk:371
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
I'm against this at the moment as we will not active Quorom anytime soon on active proposals. That and then it's just more work on trying to figure out who is active and who is not active. Since the last 2 proposals have only had 3 and 4 votes respectively. We have 9 active players and I don't really remember the last time 5 people all voted at the same time. I think just a blanket "Quorom is 2" should suffice if your really feel it saying no fewer than 2 confusing. 2 Being roughly 20% of "active" players or probably more likely 40% of "active active players?" I also think the game is running out of steam at the moment and increasing the needed numbers of votes will be the downfall of continued play. '''Therefore I will not support this proposal and think that any that do will only further hurt continued play'''. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 23:32, 21 January 2007 (EST) | I'm against this at the moment as we will not active Quorom anytime soon on active proposals. That and then it's just more work on trying to figure out who is active and who is not active. Since the last 2 proposals have only had 3 and 4 votes respectively. We have 9 active players and I don't really remember the last time 5 people all voted at the same time. I think just a blanket "Quorom is 2" should suffice if your really feel it saying no fewer than 2 confusing. 2 Being roughly 20% of "active" players or probably more likely 40% of "active active players?" I also think the game is running out of steam at the moment and increasing the needed numbers of votes will be the downfall of continued play. '''Therefore I will not support this proposal and think that any that do will only further hurt continued play'''. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 23:32, 21 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't know how much I like having 20% of active players deciding on the passing of legislature, however. And if there is a lull of activity because quorom is not being met, one of two things SHOULD happen. Either people will become inactive because it means they're not around, thus decreasing quorom. The other angle is that might this not help to stimulate activity in an active player that perhaps looks through the site, sees that no vote they could cast would be meaningful...and just adds a comment here or a debate there.... I think having a quorom is a healthy thing to have whether there are 3 active players or 50. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:43, 21 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 04:43, 22 January 2007
Proposed by Tucana25 22:57, 21 January 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
I am hoping to streamline the voting process a little...having a more strictly defined quorom is part of that. My hope is to make the whole process a little smoother and more user friendly.
Debate for this proposal shall end 00:01, 24 January 2007 (EST) --Tucana25 22:57, 21 January 2007 (EST)
Debate
I'm against this at the moment as we will not active Quorom anytime soon on active proposals. That and then it's just more work on trying to figure out who is active and who is not active. Since the last 2 proposals have only had 3 and 4 votes respectively. We have 9 active players and I don't really remember the last time 5 people all voted at the same time. I think just a blanket "Quorom is 2" should suffice if your really feel it saying no fewer than 2 confusing. 2 Being roughly 20% of "active" players or probably more likely 40% of "active active players?" I also think the game is running out of steam at the moment and increasing the needed numbers of votes will be the downfall of continued play. Therefore I will not support this proposal and think that any that do will only further hurt continued play. --Dayd 23:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)
I don't know how much I like having 20% of active players deciding on the passing of legislature, however. And if there is a lull of activity because quorom is not being met, one of two things SHOULD happen. Either people will become inactive because it means they're not around, thus decreasing quorom. The other angle is that might this not help to stimulate activity in an active player that perhaps looks through the site, sees that no vote they could cast would be meaningful...and just adds a comment here or a debate there.... I think having a quorom is a healthy thing to have whether there are 3 active players or 50. --Tucana25 23:43, 21 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
