So. Rule 301, if approved, would change the wording of Rule 203 from:
A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
A rule change is adopted if and only if the final vote is a simple majority of 'yes' or affirmative among the eligible voters.
(Note the addition of the requirement that the votes be in favor of the new rule, and the change from unanimous to simple majority.)
This proposal, if unanimously favored, would rescind the requirement that rule changes only be adopted on unanimous approval, and would instead be enacted on a majority approval.
So let the game begin!
The first turn goes to cyranocyrano.
Well, shall we put it to a vote?
First, a quick summary of the changes (which can be found here):
Rule 105: The requirement that all voters participate in votes on rule-changes is removed. A time limit of one week is set for voters to cast their votes, after which time they are considered to have abstained.
Rule 201: Sets turn-taking order by order that players are listed on the "nomic" community info page.
Rules 202 and 208: Not changed substantively; only parts that don't apply to a computer game are removed.
Rule 210: Removed entirely, since it has no effect in a computer game.
Silento estas konsento. (Silence is consent.)
Is that the case here? Is everyone withholding comment on my changes because they're okay with them?
Please don't tell me y'all have lost interest already. :-)
Well, have a look at the rules page. I've made some changes, but these are just proposed changes; I've tried to make it clear what I want to take out and what to add.
Most of the changes are the same as last time, but there is an important new one, the rule defining eligible voters (105). I've removed the requirement that eligible voters cast votes on rule changes (my thinking being that no vote is as good as a "no" vote). I've also added a requirement that voters cast votes within a week after the call of the vote, or they forfeit voting on that issue. I think this will head off problems with people holding up the game indefinitely.
If you have any comments, please reply here. Please also feel free to make your own proposals for pre-game changes if you can think of any other onerous loopholes.
Now to business. Pre-game business. :-)
Mine will be in my next post.
I would not be surprised if many of you have forgotten that this community was still around. :-)
Well, I've got a bug in my ear to get the ball rolling again. To that end, I've set up a couple of pages on my PhpWiki that we can use to keep track of info that's too cumbersome to keep updated on LiveJournal (for instance, the rules!). This is the "top" page.
You'll see that I put up a copy of Peter Suber's initial rule set. As discussed before, I don't want to use this as-is. I do, however, want to stay as close as we can to that rule set, closing enough loopholes to be playable but keeping things open enough to be interesting.
I think the first thing we should do is confirm who all wants to play the game. If there's no objection, I'd like to see everyone who wants to play respond to this post within one week; everyone who does so within that time frame will be considered a player. (I still have this community on open membership, so feel free to invite a friend.)