[Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal)

[John-Joseph Wilks]

>
>Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
>
>>
>>I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to 
>>address:
>>
>>- Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct that 
>>this confusion can't arise so easily
>
>Agreed. The Autonomic is one way to do this, as you cannot edit an existing 
>proposal, you must add a new one and delete the old one

Agreed, but once again, I'm not prepared to accept anything on the Autonomic 
as canonical, so that's irrelevant.
>
>>- Eliminate the need for unanimity (although I know people are against 
>>this)
>
>I want to see where the game goes in the mean time-especially since we're 
>going to be coming up and so probably without net access at various points 
>over the next few weeks, so it might be better to wait until everyone was 
>up in Cam and established

I'm in favour, and I'm curious to know what other solutions to the potential 
problem of two people hugely disagreeing on what should happen to the game, 
and therefore stalling it completely, the people against removing unanimity 
have come up with.
>
>>- Give proposals a time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely 
>>known after a particular point
>
>I like the idea, but see my comment above-once we're back in Cam, this'll 
>be far more reliable. Until I know I have a good network connection I'd 
>vote against.

That's done by the Rule of Assumed Consent, isn't it?
>
>>
>>I also propose the following new rule:
>>
>>==========
>>Insufficient Notices
>>
>>Any voting entity who creates a document purporting to be a Notice of 
>>Consensus which is not in fact valid shall be guilty of the crime of 
>>Taking Insufficient Notice. ==========
>>
>
>Aye

Aye

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/