I would like to offer two possible solutions to our rash of proposals. I’m sort of jumping out of character for this, so bear with me, and please, let’s actually figure this out before we go too much further. Hopefully you all can follow this logic:
Option A:
- Each proposal regarding budgeted items should contain exactly one item of discussion, and no more, in order to avoid overlap, make corrupt adaptations impossible, and allow for clarity in votes. Each proposal regarding an establishment (such as a church or a school) should be labeled in order to indicate who it affects and how it affects them, and any items not related to this establishment should be proposed separately.
- This option would split current Proposal 1.0 into 4 separate proposals, one for wool, one for spices, one for a mining kit, and one for hiring a specialist. It not only allows us to separate each of these items so that they can be voted on individually, but it also allows whomever is arranging our proposals into form to organize them appropriately. For example, when inserted into our Charter and when voted upon, the proposal to hire Patrick Killian could be listed alongside proposals to hire Lieutenant Webster, which is in current proposal 1.2, making it easier for councillors to find proposals and think about them independently as well as making it easier for us to arrange proposals in a neat fashion in our Charter.
- The con, obviously, is that this is fairly inefficient and will result in dozens of proposals being voted on per phase as opposed to just a few larger proposals, and it requires us to keep up. As such, if we choose this option, I recommend that one person be tasked as a Scribe, arranging proposals appropriately and putting them to vote en masse or in one large post, similarly to how brainbomb did on page 2.
Option B:
- Each proposal regarding budgeted items can contain as many individual options as is deemed necessary by the proposer and seconder, and should be voted on in its entirety, not in its individual pieces. Each proposal regarding an establishment should, in my opinion, be treated in the same way as Option A, wherein anything not directly relating to that establishment should be proposed separately.
- This option would keep the current proposals in the same fashion as they are on page 2 in brainbomb’s post. It allows for efficiency and for easier tracking as proposals can be clearly labeled as such and are easily seen by all councillors, even those who don’t necessarily read every word of the thread, with proper formatting (as in ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤MAKE A BIG SHOW OUT OF YOUR IMPORTANT PROPOSALS SO THAT WE CAN SEE THEM AND SO THAT THEY STICK OUT ON THE PAGE¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤). This is more chaotic and far less organized, plus it encourages a certain amount of abuse, but requires far less coordination and reliance on one character.
Whichever we choose, we should be fine so long as we all stick to it. If we choose A, we need to choose a Scribe. Obviously, it seems like brain is going to do this regardless, so he is fine with me (so long as he doesn't fuck with me anymore). If we choose B, we need to choose a proper heading for proposals so that we can easily see them. Whatever works for me.
Supporting Spain's North Coast
)
)
)
)