Talk:371
From Nomicapolis
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)
There are 6 (debatably 5) active players. Therefore 3 people would need to vote according to the new rule. Currently only 2 players need to vote on a new rule, which would be 33% of active players. I think that is a decent request for something that is 1 trying to move quickly and 2 still trying to be representative of the whole. I think given ample amount of time fore voting not casting a vote could be considered a conscience move toward abstaining. And if it's not conscience then I really don't want something to fail that would otherwise have passed due to someone not putting effort into this nomic to keep it going. Now I would be all for this if the 6 players were super active and posted something everyday, but that is not the case. I would argue that there are 3 super active players and that occassionally one of those falters and that there are 2 other active players and the finally player will have his active window run out. Of the 10 inactive players 7 will probably be removed from the census within 2 rounds. 2 or 3 of the others will probably pop in sporadically, pending they remember they now need to propose a rule and feel that they want to continue playing and actually propose a rule. If this sounds like a rant I apologize. I would really like to see play continue without added nusiances such as passive aggressive play that causes rules to fail by not even casting a vote for them. --Dayd 00:02, 22 January 2007 (EST)
- I believe we both have the same goals but are coming from different directions...let me know what you think after you read 373. I was hoping to get them all done at the same time since it sucks to edit the main page and proposals (speaking of something that drives away potential or occasional players...i think we should eliminate or consolidate everything to the main page...put the proposal table that is currently on the proposal page, etc...but anyway...) I am hoping that 373 makes things easier, not harder...but let me know... --Tucana25 00:44, 22 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
I declare this proposal open to a vote. --Tucana25 14:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)
For
Against
Abstain
