Talk:317
From Nomicapolis
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.
I have changed the word consensus to simple majority.
So taken in context the word consensus doesn't pose any of the questionable content that is really being debated. I mean the word Quorum isn't defined in the ruleset and only got one line of debate with no retort. So does anyone disagress that we don't want a general agreement and or majority of opinion to decide if a rule change is both legal and illegal?
And for the record nobody was even arguing the fact that I left the word move in, when we no longer have move defined in the ruleset. I did change that to rule proposal. So can I just ask that we concentrate on the big picture?
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. --Simulacrum 03:27, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- {con‧sen‧sus –noun, plural -sus‧es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.} I choose this wording since in its current form rule 306 part two says, with more words, you need a concensus to deem a proposed rule invalid. --Dayd 10:16, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- I agree with Sim - "Consensus" is kind of a wishy-washy word. "Majority of opinion" is the Dictionary.com primary meaning, but it also lists "general agreement or concord; harmony" as a secondary definition. Along with their house definition, Dictionary.com lists definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary and from WordNet.com, the former: "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole," and the latter: "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole." All of these definitions (other than the Dictionary.com primary definition) seem to indicate a kind of inexact unanimity rather than a simple majority. To my way of thinking, "consensus" is kind of "this is what the group agreed on," not an exact measure like plurality, majority, supermajority, or unanimity. I would prefer a more exact wording in the rule. Applejuicefool 16:43, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- 306 never uses the word "consensus" nor does it imply consensus is necessary to declare a proposal invalid. It basically states that an accusation of invalidity has to be voted on, with the same voting rules as rule change proposals. Applejuicefool 16:48, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- Can't we just change "concensus" to "overwhelming majority"? --Shivan 17:27, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- Still inexact! What is "overwhelming?" 90%? 75%? 55%? What? Applejuicefool 19:48, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. You have presented 1 definition that says "consensus" means "majority." I have presented 3 that indicate it means unanimity. Hypothetical: We get Nomicapolis up to 20 players. 19 agree on an issue. One strenuously and vocally objects. Do you have consensus? What if 2 object? What percentage have to disagree to spoil consensus? Here's the "consensus" entry from Thesaurus.com:
- Main Entry: consensus
- Part of Speech: noun
- Definition: agreement
- Synonyms: accord, concord, concurrence, consent, harmony, unanimity, unison, unity
- Antonyms: disagreement, discord, dissension
- Notes: a census is an official, periodic, count of the population; a consensus is an agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole
- Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
- Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
The problem is, if this situation ever comes up, the majority will argue that a majority constitutes "consensus", while the minority will argue that "consensus" means unanimity (which it does). Please feel free to explain your reasoning - what is the logic behind NOT using a more precise word? Applejuicefool 22:28, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- Incidentally, I don't think 212 is better than 317, but I will vote agains 317 as written because it creates as many problems as it solves. It's a lateral move, not an improvement. Applejuicefool 22:32, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- I understand that the proposer is unwilling to change the word in question. I also understad that the use of the word, as is, is possibly problematic to the future of this game to some of the players. I would suggest a compromise: leave the word but define it as well, either by using one of the definitions provided by 310 or by creating a brand new definition such as 50% of eligible voters + 1; or unaminous consent - 1; or somewhere in-between such as 87% or whatever you feel is right. That's the only reason why the rule that mentions quorum passed, because the rule defined the term.
- As it is, I am still on the fence, I do like this proposal but my position would definately improve if we see some sort of compromise. Lastly, I would like to mention that the proposer did catch me red-handed as I did not notice the word "turn" in the proposal. I thank the proposer for the change of words in that regard. --Simulacrum 02:29, 17 November 2006 (EST)
I think we should ammend rule 310 and create the "supermajority". It should defined as be 8/10 or 9/10 of the votes cast.
The word concensus is problematic because we are getting stuck in semantics. Where is come from concensus actally means 100% of the votes. So even if one person says no the proposal/whatever is not passed.--Shivan 10:27, 17 November 2006 (EST)
This is a good idea, but unfortunately, 310 already defines "supermajority" as 66% of the vote. Personally, I think 317 would be a great rule if the proposer would simply relent and replace "consensus" with "supermajority". Applejuicefool 10:54, 17 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Dayd 11:24, 18 November 2006 (EST)
- --Simulacrum 08:32, 19 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 09:48, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Against
~
