Yeah, it’d be good to get a ruling to clear things up. I think we’re all scared that it’ll take two days to get everyone to consent to continue afterward.
I vote yes on prop 305
The answer to what’s the correct way to interpret the rules is this: If we all agree (for now), then it’s whatever we agree on for this turn. If not, then it’s whatever the Judge for that turn says.
The thing about Judgment is we don’t set precedents with it. So whatever we decide to do this turn won’t make any difference in future turns. If we all agree for now that Rule 111 says that we can restart voting, then we can just go with what we have, and there’s no need to invoke Judgment. Spurious George is the only player whose status is currently ambiguous, and if he just re-casts his vote as yes, there won’t be any problems as far as this goes.
If you don’t like this interpretation, but you feel it’s okay to make an exception in this case, you can go along with it, but this will not affect what happens in future turns. I think it’s reasonable to let it slide this once, and in the future demand a clearer idea of when voting officially starts.
I vote YES on Prop 305.
I feel kinda silly, voting on my own Proposal.
I think we need to give some thought to the issues of amending proposals. Rule 111 does seem to specify that once voting has begun, there can no longer be any changes in the proposal. If we ignore that principle, we are heading towards a situation where someone will vote on a proposal, then see it changed in a way he doesn’t agree with. One alternative is that we allow votes to be changed, but if we do that, it will ironically undermine the very proposal we are voting on. So I think we should maintain a strict interpretation on Rule 111 for now and no allow any further amendments of proposals once votes have been cast.
A bump to tide us over the weekend.
I think the rule is rather undemocratic. I mean, not letting everyone have their say? If this were made a rule, half of the players (plus one) could get together one day and propose many fly-by-night rules, pass them, and perhaps even kick other folks out without any chance for others to have input. I have to vote no to Prop 305.
Maybe you’re right, but in two rotations of turns, rule-changes will only need a majority anyway. At that point, if a majority of players are determined to propose these fly-by-night rules and kick out other players, what difference does it really make if the other players have input or not? There’s nothing they could really do to stop them.
Achernar, it’s not getting random players kicked out that’s my concern. It’s the ability to speed the game in such a way that debate can be limited to far too short. If everyone gets to vote, everyone gets to know what’s happening. I don’t mind the simple majority part. It’s the part where you don’t have to listen to everyone’s vote.
bump
Oh, sorry. From your previous post, it kinda sounded like that was your concern.
Anyway, I’m not trying to convince you to change your vote or anything. Just addressing that issue. 
How about this idea. Once a proposal has received a majority of votes for it or against it, we can declare the vote has been decided and the next player can begin his turn. However, we will still allow all players to vote if they want to. This will give everyone the opportunity to register their opinion and vote for purposes of points. However waiting for these extra votes will not hold up the game. I suppose we need some limit on late votes, so let’s say all votes must be completed within one circuit of players and then the opportunity to vote is lost.
I like that idea, but there are probably some things about it that I haven’t thought of. I would, however, like to make it so that if you vote on 315, you’ve lost any chance you had to vote on 313 or 314. That’ll help prevent players from saving up votes in some nefarious plot to throw scores out of whack.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Probably a good idea. How about only handing out ten points for voting against the most recent decided vote. That way nobody can suddenly slam-vote for ten old proposals and get a hundred points. Of course at the rate we’re going there will never be ten approved proposals.
Also, I assume we would only allow players who were in the game at the time of the proposal to vote on it. New players could only vote on proposals from the time they joined the game.
I’ve gotta vote NO on the Amended Prop 305. My decision stands on the use of “registered players” instead of “eligible voters.”
Since we’re having all this discussion over eligibility, if more than half the players are ineligible for a vote then the vote can’t be completed. Or are we making it so that ineligible players become unregistered from the game?
I guess the decision over which version of 305 we’re going with is moot, if BraheSilver is going to vote NO.
Zev Steinhardt
Whoops, I missed Jonmarzie’s NO above, and I just got around to his email NO to me earlier.
Zev Steinhardt
BTW, voting is now done on 305. TJDude825, it’s your turn to come up with Prop 306.
Zev Steinhardt
I think we need to get a little less focused on enacting perfect rules. Remember that there will be future rules; if you feel the current proposal isn’t perfect, there will be opportunities to correct its flaws. So don’t ask “is this rule perfect?”; ask instead “is this rule better than what we have now?”
Besides, we need to get moving.
Ok, if you don’t want a simple majority, how about two-thirds?
Proposal 306:
**The text of Rule 203 changes to:
A rule-change is considered adopted if at least two-thirds of the current players vote YES. Once the necessary two-thirds majority is reached, the Proposer has the option of closing the vote, or allowing the players who haven’t voted to vote. This rule supercedes Rule 303.**