Quick! Somebody change it to supersede before iampunha sees it! 
I also vote yes.
I think supercede is spelled correctly. But “in eir sole discretion”? Mikie, I think your keyboard is missing a ‘th’ key.
I vote Yes again on the amended prop.
I know I’ve voted (and I’m sticking with my vote) but now I have some questions. I see two ways this proposal could be interpretated. One is that a proposal is passed when a simple majority of all the players have voted in favor of it. The other is that the proposal is passed when a simple majority have voted on the proposal and a majority of the voters are in favor.
For example, let’s assume we have 29 voters. 15 would therefore be a majority. Obviously if 15 people vote in favor of a proposal then it’s received a majority of all possible votes and further voting wouldn’t have affected the outcome. But suppose 15 people voted and 8 voted yes and 7 voted no. Could the Proposer declare that a simple majority has been reached, he is closing the voting, and the proposal is passed by a majority of the votes?
Another possible issue is the definition of “the moment of a simple majority”. Using my above example of 29 voters, let’s assume that with 15 votes in, there are 8 no votes and 7 yeses. The Proposer doesn’t want his proposal to die so he doesn’t end the voting. Then three more people vote, all yes. The Proposer now declares that a majority has voted and he is ending the voting with his proposal passing 10-9. Would someone argue that the Proposer only had the option of closing the vote at the “moment” between the 15th and 16th vote?
People should also keep in mind Rule 204. Once a rule has been passed by a majority and is going to be enacted, everyone who then jumps in and votes against it before the voting closes will get 10 points. The Proposer who controls the timing for closing the voting therefore will have a lot of power.
Overall, I still think Proposal 305 is a good idea. But we might want to address some of these drawbacks with Proposal 306.
Little Nemo asked my question so much better than I could.
Basically, what do you mean by ‘reached’?
Say there’s 10 players. Can we end the voting when:
6 people have voted yes?
5 people have voted no?
6 people have voted no?
6 people have voted at all (not my interpretation, but possible)?
FWIW, my interpretation of it was that the majority had to vote YES. Thus, if we have 19 voters, once there are ten YES votes, the proposer can call it a day and move on…
Zev Steinhardt
So that means if a proposal doesn’t pass we still have to wait for everyone to vote?
I feel there to be abiguity in the proposal made by mikie above. Can it still be reworded or are we past that point?
I was thinking something like this (my changes are in bold):
A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. Once there has been a simple majority of “yes” votes or a simple majority of “no” votes, it is the Proposer’s decision, in their sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game. This rule shall supercede Rule 303.
I vote YES.
I apologize to the group for using a convention without preface or reference. Spivak Pronouns are used in several Nomic games, as well as elsewhere. I find them to be an elegant way around the “he/she/it” problem.
As Current Proposer™ I agree that MarkofT’s language is a bit clearer. To wit:
Amended Amended Proposal 305:
To change the text of Rule 203 to read as follows:
A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. Once there has been a simple majority of “yes” votes or a simple majority of “no” votes, it is the Proposer’s decision, in eir sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game. This rule shall supercede Rule 303.
(end of Amended Proposal)
Carry on.
Can a proposal change once voting has started? Not that I’d kick up a big fuss one way or another but if we allow it then people should at least be allowed to revote. Otherwise people’s votes could end up being counted for a proposal that is different from what they thought they would voting for. In this case, it seems to be the same proposal but some people might disagree.
About the whole pronoun thing; I didn’t notice the “eir” in the proposal that Zev emailed but if I had I would have thought it was a typo and pointed it out. I’m a pretty liberal guy but inventing new pronouns seems a bit over the top to me. In any case “their” doesn’t specify a gender anyway so what’s the point of replacing it? 
If we start using made up words it could lead to confusion in the future and we could end up having to constantly re-explain it to new players who complain about typos.
I vote yes.
And thanks for the link to Spivak pronouns. I have probably seen them around elsewhere but had forgotten them. I’m off to torment a spelling nazi over in another forum.
Err, voting has clearly begun for the second time (which may not have been legal either - Rule 111 seems to say that once voting has started, the Proposal is locked). I don’t think you can amend the Prop after voting has begun (much as I like the clarified version you just posted). The Prop could be re-worked, and voting stopped and started, too many times otherwise.
Perhaps we’ll need to clarify a bit better The Debate Period and The Voting Period from now on.
I’m reading Rule 111 as saying that if the proposer decided to amend the rule due ambiguity, they may and restart the voting period.
I could be wrong 'tho.
Yes on 305
MarkofT,
I don’t think it says that. It says that the proposer decides the time to end debate and vote. I don’t think this means that they can repeatedly modify the proposal and restart voting. This is IMHO of course.
This is a slight hijack to the current discussion but I thought I should bring it up. In researching this proposal before voting I was at first confused by the fact that 105 was missing. After a few minutes I realized that it was now listed as 303. This is correct but it can be confusing. I would like to make a modest suggestion to the Keeper of the Records (aka Zev). The original slot for 105 should still be there with its text replaced with a statement that it was transmuted to rule 303 and that there is no longer a valid rule 105 (or some similar statement). Also rule 303 should perhaps contain a parenthesized remark (which would not actually be part of the rule) saying that it was formerly rule 105. Just a suggestion.
Fair enough. I’ll do that the next time I update the site. 
Zev Steinhardt
I’m assuming proposal 305, if passed, would not supercede rule 109, which states that “Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters.”
Am I correct here? Anyone? Bueller?
That sounds about right.
Does anybody else think we might need a Call for Judgment on what exactly is going on here? Which draft of the proposal are we voting on? Which votes have been counted and which not? Can the voting be stopped and re-started, as it has seemed to do once or twice?
It’s all a bit confusing until we figure out when a Prop can be re-written and re-submitted.