I think it’s fine just the way it is.
Zev:
I don’t understand clause (b). Could you explain more what you think it will do and why it is necessary?
Maybe I don’t know what you see as the difference between “(a) a majority of the eligible voters” and “(b) a majority of the eligible voters at the time the rule-change was proposed”.
The purpose of the clause is to prevent a situation where only one or two people bother to vote on an issue and having it pass on that basis. In short, it basically requires a quorom of votes for anything to pass.
Zev Steinhardt
I’m not sure I understand the (b) clause. Under our new rule, anyone who doesn’t vote within 72 hours is not an eligible voter. So we’ll always have not only a majority but all of the eligible voters voting every time. Because anyone who didn’t vote wasn’t an eligible voter.
To use Zev’s example, if we have fourteen players but only two decide to vote on rule, twelve of the players are now ineligible voters. The two eligible voters both voted yes. So all the eligible voters voted and the majority of them voted yes.
Or am I missing something?
That’s precisely the scenario I want to avoid, Little Nemo. Under those circumstances, I don’t want the proposal to pass.
Zev Steinhardt
However on further reflection, I suppose the part about being an eligible voter at the time the rule was proposed would eliminate the possibility I said above. But I still think it’s possible to rig an election.
Let’s say it’s five weeks from now and interest is declining. Proposal 379 is on the boards and has minimal support. The majority of players don’t bother to vote on it knowing it will fail and they’ll be recorded as ineligible voters. But if Proposal 380 is interesting, they’ll vote on that and resume their eligibility.
Meanwhile Zev and I have hatched a sinister plot. We vote on Proposal 379 and maintain our eligibility. It’s my turn next and I propose Rule 380: “Zev and Nemo are Dictators for Life. All other players lose their rights to vote and must bow down before them.”
Zev and I vote yes to this idea. We’re the only two eligible voters at the time the rule was proposed, so the majority of eligible voters voted on it and voted in favor of it. Motion carried and the the rest of you worms can stick it.
How about this? Change the (b) clause to “a majority of the players actually cast a YES or NO vote.” The amount of voters who are eligible or ineligible may change from vote to vote, but the players remain fairly steady. Requiring a majority quorum of players should prevent any runaway votes by a temporary minority of eligible voters.
OK, I see how (b) works now. Nemo’s chilling vision of the future 
seems to be a possibility once any “majority rules” rule is active along with a “non-voters become inactive” rule. A small enough cadre of eligible voters could run rampant and corrupt the game very quickly. But, uh, vigilance is the watchword of freedom, or something. We just have to be careful and watch out for potential dictators.
Ok, once again I have to vote ahead of time in trust of the group-- I vote yes on this proposal when it comes up. On Sunday I’m moving to Belgium and don’t know what my internet access will be like and it may be spotty for a while. So to speed things up, after this vote I place myself on temporary hiatus until I report back again and reenlist. How does that sound?
I had a question about zev’s proposal, but Nemo seemed to know what I would be thinking before I read it. I’d support the proposal if it was amended as suggested.
Meanwhile Zev’s muttering “That damned blabbermouthed Nemo. I knew I shouldn’t have picked him as my secret partner in world domination!”
That damned blabbermouthed Nemo. I knew I shouldn’t have picked him as my secret partner in world domination!
Zev Steinhardt
I don’t like part (b). I think as long as people are given a chance to vote, the vote should be able to go through despite the inactivity of some of the players. Having said that, if the proposal is made as it is, I’d vote yes anyway.
One question: does the voting period end after the specified time now, or does it end after the majority has been reached?
I can see players waiting for a majority of “ayes”, then piling in the nays for points. If the period ends after the majority is reached, then that won’t happen. However, if we end the period before all eligible voters have spoken, aren’t we taking away some of the spirit of the democracy?
“Prop 309: This is not a democracy.”
BraheSilver raises a good point. With the scoring system the way it is, when the opportunity to vote ends is an important issue.
I vote YES on Prop 308.
I vote yes on the proposition. It seems fair enough.
Just to push this thread back to the public eye (a Sisyphean task around here), I vote YES on 308.
YES on 308
Is 308 actually been put up for a vote yet? If so, are we voting on the original version?