Thursday, January 31, 2013

Proposal: Mr Smith Goes to BlogNomic

Timed out, failed, self-killed. 1-8. Josh loses 2 Credibility; nqeron loses 1 for voting FOR; Clucky, Koen, Murphy, nqeron, and scshunt lose 1 Credibility for not voting. Josh

Adminned at 03 Feb 2013 02:37:00 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The Filibuster:

An Honourable Member may Filibuster any proposal by expending 1 Credibility and making a comment to that proposal that includes the word “Filibuster” somewhere in its text. No Honourable Member may post a comment to a Filibustered proposal until at least an hour has passed since the Filibuster was posted, except Honourable Members of the same Party as the Honourable Member who initially posted it. An Honourable Member may not Filibuster a proposal if they have Filibustered that proposal in the preceding 65 minutes.

If a proposal has been filibustered at any point then it may not be resolved unless it has been open for voting for at least 24 hours. If the Proposal is resolved while still Filibustered than any Honourable Member who spent Credibility to Filibuster that Proposal gains a quantity of Credibility equal to that spent.

Add the following as a subrule to the rule entitled Points of Order, called Cloture:

A Point of Order may be raised to invoke Cloture on a proposal. A proposal that has had Cloture invoked upon it may not be Filibustered.

Comments

nqeron:

01-31-2013 14:24:55 UTC

for

An addition for for your title!

Spitemaster:

01-31-2013 16:11:07 UTC

against If you have a few people in the party, they can alternately filibuster it continuously.  Also, I think 65 minutes is too short.

scshunt:

01-31-2013 16:18:52 UTC

I don’t understand what a Point of Order to invoke Cloture actually does. Is it the making of the Point of Order that invokes it? Or does it need to be ruled Well Taken?

Josh: HE/HIM

01-31-2013 16:20:26 UTC

I would argue that the Point of Order needs to be well-taken, but the wording could perhaps be tightened up.

RaichuKFM:

01-31-2013 20:44:40 UTC

against One person commenting early enough can lock any Proposal down assuming they’re in a 3-person Party. Heck, if I made a Proposal I could ensure its success, assuming Larry and Skju supported it.

Josh: HE/HIM

01-31-2013 21:09:24 UTC

Getting three people to co-ordinate every hour for 24 hours would be harder than you think. That notwithstanding, cloture would only take 12 hours to pass. This is not without safeguards.

Josh: HE/HIM

01-31-2013 21:32:43 UTC

Cloture *could* take only 12 hours to pass, I should say.

nqeron:

01-31-2013 22:07:33 UTC

Argh - I know Cloture is a word, but my mind wants it to be Closure!

Larrytheturtle:

01-31-2013 22:16:55 UTC

against

Klisz:

01-31-2013 23:32:56 UTC

against

Patrick:

01-31-2013 23:47:17 UTC

against
Though I must say, Josh, this proposal really brings out the green in your eyes.

Skju:

02-01-2013 01:14:08 UTC

against
But what about a non-explicit filibustering mechanic?

Purplebeard:

02-01-2013 07:35:04 UTC

for on the proposal.

against on the rule that promotes mindless bandwagoning.

Purplebeard:

02-01-2013 08:00:45 UTC

Actually, “the first moment at which [this proposal] could have been resolved” has now passed, so I can safely vote for .

Purplebeard:

02-01-2013 08:02:16 UTC

Oh wait, proposal queue.  against

Josh: HE/HIM

02-01-2013 12:37:46 UTC

against s/k

Spitemaster:

02-01-2013 16:43:37 UTC

What if Filibustering the proposal extended the time limits, and cloture was removed?