The problem with that, is since subcommittee according to that, lasts only for 6 hours, we could end up in a situation where two proposals are being voted on at once.

The timing would be fine if we got rid of lurkers. So I think that is our biggest issue right now, but with a long queue, and not very many people voting, it is going to take a while for us to get a proposal through for that.

hmm, perhaps the proposal that the subcommittee ruled on instantly joins the top of the queue? to be honest i think these problems may cause further confusion and constitutional crisis. it is tough. perhaps just keep it as it is? just make it clearer that we don't each in turn have 6 hours to make up our own wording, but there is 6 hours for everyone to suggest new wording. also there should be an amount of time for the voting after we suggest the new wordings. and where you say the options should be 'yea' or 'nay', it should be 'aye' or 'nay'

at least all proposals are void after 24 hours. whilst it may temporarily get rid of good proposals, it should keep the queue short enough that we can get onto this urgent issue (of lurking, and of rewording proposals, personally we need to solve the lurking crisis first, but either work)

My amendment queue proposal could help us pass whatever we needed to quickly, and that might get passed soon(ish) if people actually voted.

quick update: we only need one more nay vote to block this and move on to the next issue

guak: Any proposed rule or amendment that is redundant will dock all of the proposers accumulated [Nomic] pointz and give that exact amount to each other player.

Aye: guak, ezra, Vashta
Nay: atrum, ghug, SD, Squigs, ag

For the time being, I am withdrawing the proposal that I recently proposed in order to rework the wording of the proposal. (Also typing proposal gets confusing in situations where you need to also reference the proposer. Thus I think we need to get that amended to call them Bills or something like that).

Nay on guak's.

guaks fails, semcks is up now.

wait, it's kasimax's supposedly

Now as for amendments: I don't think the word amendment should be used for a modification of a current rule. Proposal is fine for that. Example (not a real proposal).

PROPOSAL: I propose that rule 100 be removed and replaced with the same rule, with "503" in place of "502."

An amendment, I think, should be an amendment of a currently proposed but not yet passed rule, as it is in parliamentary procedure. My thoughts anyway.

kasimax's proposal has expired from the 24 hour limit, so we are onto semcks proposal.

also, i disagree with what you're suggesting semck, a rule deletion is one thing, a rule addition another. that would be two acts. changing, or amending a rule is one act. i think what you call an amendment should be called a 'revision' as atrum suggests in his proposal

Well, I wasnt sure what to do with kasimax's, because ghug's amendment technically placed it in the queue, but it didnt say where in the queue to put it. Since it had votes, I thought we should just put it at the top of the queue.

doesn't matter now, it has expired from time and is cast in the abyss.

Smeck: at 12:01 PM CDT tomorrow, Nomic [members] will receive points as follows: [members] who ids begin with a, c, e, g, etc. will be designated "odd-lettered" [members], the remainder will be designated even-letter players. At 12:01 PM CDT tomorrow, the odd-lettered players will each receive 100 [Nomic] pointz if there were an odd number of posts submitted to the "Truly original thread" / "last person to post wins" thread before 12:01 PM CDT, otherwise, the even-lettered players will receive 100 [Nomic] pointz.

ghug: Players can form coalitions. Coalitions are groups of players who can win together. The winning condition of a coalition is 1.5 times the sum of the winning conditions of the constituents rounded up to the nearest integer. Coalitions are allowed to add and remove players, disband, and make internal rules of governance. Players in coalitions maintain their individual votes unless otherwise dictated. All members of a potential coalition must consent to its creation and the addition of any future members must come with the consent of the added player. Any addition or removal of a player to or from a coalition must follow any rules the coalition has created to govern additions and removals. A player must forfeit all nomic points to his coalition upon joining, as well as any nomic points which might be gained while a member of said coalition. A coalition has the right to redistribute the points of the players upon a player's leaving of the coalition or the coalition's disbandment. No coalition may comprise more than half of the players in the game.

SD: any future proposals must be accompanied with an explanation of how the proposal, if passed, would contribute to the good of us, the nomic members

ezra: Ladies and gentilman I propose (for queue) that the first 10 founding members of novic be given the title senator and be given a extra right. Senator votes count as 2 votes. Also when you want to talk to a senator you would for example say Senator kasimax.

Squigs: All amendments that are proposed will be put in a queue. This queue will be seperate from the rule queue, and takes priority over the rule queue. However, in order to be an amendment, the amendment must relate to the rule it amends. If a nomic member feels that is does not relate, I vote will be called for to determine if it should be placed on the queue or not.

above is the list still in queue. semcks up for voting.

i think the proposal in question is interesting, but not for me, i must vote nay.

Alright, I vote nay for Semck's proposal.

Once again, @SD, I think the completely standard nomenclature is adequate here. A proposal has plenary power, whether to add a new rule, change an old one, or anything else.

Anyway, to my proposal: I think it would be fun, which is why I proposed it. Its effect should be to cause a mad rush of Nomic members trying to control the parity of the thread in question. While this would be fairly difficult, it would be potentially humorous, and it would not be enough points to cause anybody to win at present. Thus I argue it would be an enjoyable interlude.

i think it could be Proposal: rule 101 is amended to read xy instead of xx
but to say proposal: rule 101 is abolished, we instate rule 102 instead
would be wrong. i think everything is a proposal, but we propose new rules, amendments etc.

I really could not count all the posts up. I do like the idea of trying to make 'fun' rules, to influence the thread, and think we should come up with some, but this one, just doesn't resonate with me. Sorry.

I also vote nay on Smeck's Proposal.

semck* (sorry)

nay on semck.

That makes sense, SD.

As for "counting all the posts up," there is a number at the very bottom, so there is no need. (Look right under the reply box).

And no need to apologize.

I propose to add the following to the queue:

'Spirit of the Law' Bill (When referencing this Proposal, you can just state this title)

“All future proposals shall have four voting options, instead of the current two. These extra two options will be titled ‘Abstain’ and ‘Revise’.”

“The Abstain voting option will work fairly simply. It states that you do not wish to cast a vote for or against the current proposal.”

“The Revise option will work as follows:

If the Revise vote has a simple majority of the total votes, pursuant to Rule #5, the current proposal shall neither be rejected, no made into a Rule; instead, it will go to a subcommittee vote, which consists of the following steps:

1) Revision
2) Voting
3) Resubmission

The steps will play out as follows:

Revision – When the Proposal is in the revision step, all Nomic Members will have 6 hours from the point the Proposal entered Subcommittee, to submit new language for the Proposal at hand (if they wish).

Voting – When the proposal is in the Voting step of Subcommittee, all Nomic Members will have 2 hours from the point when the proposal finished the Revision step, to vote on which new set of language best represents the ‘spirit of the law’. Any Nomic Member who fails to vote during this 2 hour window will be considered abstaining from the future votes on the Proposal at hand. In the case of a draw/tie between new languages for the Proposal, the originator of the Proposal shall cast the deciding vote between the new languages of the Proposal.

Resubmission – Once the Subcommittee voting process has been completed, the Proposal shall be resubmitted to the floor for a second vote. With this second vote, all Nomic Members who voted during subcommittee will have 12 hours to vote between the following options: yea, nay or abstain.

Atrum, could I suggest that maybe, to streamline, the subcommittee would need only a majority of those who had either already voted on the proposition before it went into subcommittee, or those who came along before it left subcommittee, to be passed out of subcommittee?

Also, FWIW, the thing about anybody not posting during a 2-hour window in subcommittee automatically abstaining in future will keep me from voting for your proposal if it's still there by the time this comes up.

Just because somebody isn't around to help in revision should not automatically deprive them of their vote (or even do so by default).

Yeah, I agree with what Semck said above ^

Nay on semck's proposal.

Man I'm stupid sometimes. Should have thought of that semck! I assumed the subcommittee would go to a majority of the votes cast in the subcommittee? as in, based on whoever managed to vote?