Talk:317

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
(Debate)
m (Debate)
Line 6: Line 6:
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=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)
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)

Revision as of 08:28, 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

Add FOR vote


Against

Add AGAINST vote


Personal tools