Sunday, February 17, 2013

Proposal: Resolving the issue

Times out and fails at 2-4-2. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 01:25:40 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Elections”  (or “Presidency”, if a rule already exists entitled “Elections”):

  As a weekly action, an Hon. Member may post a proposal with a subject “Presidential Nomination”.  If this proposal is enacted, then the Hon. Member achieves victory.  As long as there are no other such proposals from a member of the same party, then for all purposes (resolution and passing) all Hon. Members of the same party are counted as having voted FOR unless they specify otherwise.  However, the proposal may not be resolved unless at least one Hon. Member from each other (non-dissolved) party has voted or 12 hours have passed.  In addition, such a proposal may not be vetoed.

With a lot of people idling, and some of this dying, I am proposing an endgame.  Plus, there’s a strategy that should work very well for this.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

17-02-2013 08:30:24 UTC

against The numerical superiority of the Green Party makes this a little bit too blatant.

Larrytheturtle:

17-02-2013 08:40:37 UTC

for While there is a benefit in numerical superiority, it doesn’t mean we would automatically win.

scshunt:

17-02-2013 17:52:33 UTC

I am opposed to this but will not veto. There’s a perfectly interesting and more scammable victory mechanic already in place.

RaichuKFM: she/her

17-02-2013 18:25:21 UTC

imperial Josh, yes we have superiority. That means you do too. I’d guess you were talking about a fair play aspect, but considering your new Proposal…

Josh: Observer he/they

17-02-2013 18:26:32 UTC

If I win, I promise it will be fair. This isn’t fair.

Klisz:

17-02-2013 19:33:54 UTC

imperial

Skju:

17-02-2013 20:46:15 UTC

against
I don’t understand why everyone’s freaking out about victory conditions.

Purplebeard:

17-02-2013 21:02:30 UTC

against

Henri:

19-02-2013 00:01:02 UTC

against