Talk:317
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| - | + | I am uncomfortable with the term '''consensus''' since it is not officially defined in the ruleset. Would it be equivalent to '''unaminous consent''' as defined in rule [[310]]? I am concerned that some yahoo might try to dissent in order to deadlock the game. Perhaps a '''supermajority''' would suffice, or an even more restrictive 9/10ths ''overwhelming majority''. I might just be paranoid though. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 03:27, 15 November 2006 (EST) | |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 08:27, 15 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This is to fix the use of the word turn and the fact that the Judge has been abolished.
Debate
Add comments I am uncomfortable with the term consensus since it is not officially defined in the ruleset. Would it be equivalent to unaminous consent as defined in rule 310? I am concerned that some yahoo might try to dissent in order to deadlock the game. Perhaps a supermajority would suffice, or an even more restrictive 9/10ths overwhelming majority. I might just be paranoid though. --Simulacrum 03:27, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
