Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Proposal: Run-Off

S-K by Chronos. Failed by IX.

Adminned at 13 Jan 2006 13:29:57 UTC

Protagonists may name another protagonist alongside their vote on this Proposal.

If the same Protagonist is named in a number of votes equal or above Quorum, that Protagonist shall win this Dynasty.

If there is no Protagonist named in a number of votes equal or above Quorum, but there is one who is most named and one who is the second most named, then a post shall be made to this Blog with the Title “ProtA x ProtB” where ProtA is the Protagonist most named in the votes and Prot B is the second most named.

If there is no Protagonist named in a number of votes equal or above Quorum, and there are two who are tied as the most named, then a post shall be made to this Blog with the Title “Run-Off: ProtA x ProtB” where ProtA is one of those Protagonists and Prot B is the other, in the order they are listed in the sidebar.

If none of the criteria listed above is met, this Proposal does nothing.

If the post described in this Proposal was made to the Blog, consequent to the enactment of this Proposal, all rules shall be repealed and a new one, named Run-Off added, substituting ProtA and ProtB with the names actually used in that post:

There is a Post in the Blognomic page Titled “Run-Off: ProtA x ProtB”. Any Protagonist may add comments to that post, nominating one of the Protagonists listed in its title (a Protagonist’s nomination overriding eir earlier ones). That shall continue until one of the Protagonists reaches a quorum of nominations or until three days have passed from the enactment of this rule. When that happens, the Protagonist with most nominations shall win this Dynasty. If, at that time, there is a tie, this rule shall be repealed.

No Proposal may legally be made.

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

01-11-2006 13:27:56 UTC

for Explicit vote, naming Smith.

Purplebeard:

01-11-2006 15:42:40 UTC

for Rodney

Rodney:

01-11-2006 17:49:05 UTC

for Smith

Hix:

01-11-2006 20:16:25 UTC

against Elias IX

smith:

01-11-2006 20:20:03 UTC

waiting to see how 75th responds…

ChronosPhaenon:

01-11-2006 20:24:18 UTC

If e responds vetoing, I’ll issue a CfJ against the veto.

Elias IX:

01-11-2006 20:44:42 UTC

against Quazie

Elias IX:

01-11-2006 21:03:13 UTC

Ooh, that doesn’t count as a protagonist. Chronos. against

smith:

01-11-2006 23:50:20 UTC

imperial Elias IX

Igthorn:

01-12-2006 07:39:29 UTC

[y] Chronos

Saurik:

01-12-2006 08:56:49 UTC

against Elias IX.

I haven’t read the archives yet, but does this game really rely so damned much on a Narrator that you can’t play it without one? I had never even heard of nomics having a game master until I started playing blognomic. If you don’t like 75th then why the hell doesn’t someone just change the Laws to do away with the Narrator?

(And if it isn’t 75th that’s the problem, but the fact that the game is running so amazingly slowly, how about people stop complaining, propose something that actually does something other than whine about how the game is moving, or at least vote concretely on proposals rather than continually tossing in IMPERIAL.)

Elias IX:

01-12-2006 12:52:41 UTC

Igthorn, you may, or may not, want to consider voting again, as that first one doesn’t count.

Excalabur:

01-12-2006 14:40:24 UTC

Saurik: a lot of it is that 75th picked a narrator-intensive theme, and then disappeared. 

against Elias IX.

Igthorn:

01-12-2006 18:00:50 UTC

for

Chronos

Sorry :)

Angry Grasshopper:

01-12-2006 20:54:23 UTC

Smith!

The Lone Amigo:

01-12-2006 22:25:31 UTC

for Smith

And one of the unique elements of BlogNomic, I think, is its dynastic system, so I would respond negatively to proposals removing that.

Hix:

01-12-2006 23:28:02 UTC

against Chronos

Elias IX:

01-13-2006 01:33:11 UTC

against Hix apparently votes for two different Protagonists. There was no specification as to whether only counted votes add toward naming of Protagonists.

And I’ve just cast my vote for Hix, then.

Angry Grasshopper:

01-13-2006 01:46:12 UTC

Mr. 9: I had noticed that, and though t briefly about spamming the proposal, but then I noticed that it’s not enactable any time soon, so I didn’t. ;)

Elias IX:

01-13-2006 02:28:49 UTC

for CoV, Smith.

Elias IX:

01-13-2006 02:40:22 UTC

against CoV, again. The Lone Amigo. Sorry about this. Really, I am.

Excalabur:

01-13-2006 10:17:41 UTC

Sure, sure.

ChronosPhaenon:

01-13-2006 20:36:59 UTC

against S-K, ‘cos of the spam