Subject: Return of the Revenge of the Registration Proposal of PsychicNathan Strikes Back

From: Nathan McCoy <nmccoy@o...>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:10:07 -0700

<begin proposal>

Create the following three rules:

5.91 A Proposal may request a Support of Coins be established for said
proposal, and if destroying said Coins as an action of said proposal would allow
said proposal to become pending, then the destruction of all Coins assigned to
said proposal's Support of Coins is considered an action of said proposal, and
thus said proposal becomes pending.

5.92 Any player may assign any number of Coins which said player possesses to
be considered part of a proposal's Support of Coins.

5.93 Any Proposal which has not become pending within one week of its
submission is destroyed.

Destroy rule 5.8.

Create rule 5.8: No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending and does
not request Support.

Create rule 5.991 in the group PROPOSALS: "The person who submitted
a proposal may destroy that proposal, if there are not currently more FOR votes
than AGAINST votes on it, by announcing eir wish to do so on the mailing list."

Destroy a coin belonging to The Bank.

Destroy the first Registration Proposal of PsychicNathan.

Destroy this proposal.

<end proposal>

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 03:55:45 -0700

I'm not yet voting, because I'd like a consensus on whether 
PsychicNathans proposed rule 5.8 is too onerous or not.

As it is I'm thinking that simply putting the sentence "This proposal 
requests a Support of Coins." at the beginning of every proposal would 
satisfy this new 5.8, so I don't actualy think it's all that bad, but 
what do you others think? Does that actually satisfy these requirements?

Nathan McCoy wrote:

>5.91 A Proposal may request a Support of Coins be established for said proposal, and if destroying said Coins as an action of said proposal would allow said proposal to become pending, then the destruction of all Coins assigned to said proposal's Support of Coins is considered an action of said proposal, and thus said proposal becomes pending.
>
>5.92 Any player may assign any number of Coins which said player possesses to be considered part of a proposal's Support of Coins.
>
>5.93 Any Proposal which has not become pending within one week of its submission is destroyed.
>
>Destroy rule 5.8.
>
>Create rule 5.8: No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending and does not request Support.
>
>Create rule 5.991 in the group PROPOSALS: "The person who submitted a proposal may destroy that proposal, if there are not currently more FOR votes than AGAINST votes on it, by announcing eir wish to do so on the mailing list."
>

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 08:34:38 -0400

>what do you others think? Does that actually satisfy these requirements?

Umm... you only need to be pending OR request support. If you both aren't
pending AND don't request support, nobody can vote.

Predictably, I'm FOR it.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:18:46 -0700

>pending AND don't request support, nobody can vote.
Hmmm... Well I had been reading it as requiring both, but I see that 
interpretation as well. Of course there are two points about your 
interpretation that make this a little dangerous:

1) ALL submitted proposals expire.(rule 5.7) All expired rules are 
tested for passage.(rules 6.2, 6.3) If we can vote on a proposal which 
is not pending, then when it expires it can theoretically pass, even if 
t was never pending.

2) Fortunately, we have rule 5.6, which takes precedence over 5.8, which 
states you must state "what pending proposal" you are casting your vote 
on, thereby acting somewhat redundently.

Point One, makes a big ol'messa things. Point two, means that under 
your interpretation the request is optional, under my interpretation it 
becomes a formality. Can we get any other opinions on this?

For reference PsychicNathan's proposed rule 5.8:
"Create rule 5.8: No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending 
and does not request Support."

>Predictably, I'm FOR it.
As Speaker: Noted.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:13:10 -0700

>Destroy the first Registration Proposal of PsychicNathan.

Okay, well I'm actually going to vote FOR this. While I'm still not so 
sure about the new 5.8, I'm willing to give it the benefit of a doubt.