On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Voting on 326-329 has closed and voting on 330 closes in half an hour. Full > report at that time. Here I just number and repeat 11 new proposals. > > -Dan > > > 331 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read: >> >> The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified >> players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker >> and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most >> recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the >> player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. >> >> [Proposal comment: i.e. judges now selected from active players rather >> than always being the Speaker.]
FOR > 332 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 302 be amended to read: >> >> When a proposal is adopted, each Voter who voted against it shall >> receive 5 points, and its author shall receive 10 points. When a >> proposal's voting period ends, each Voter who voted on it shall >> receive 5 points, unless they received points by this clause in the >> last 24 hours. >> >> [Proposal comment: Reward for voting.] FOR > 333 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 205 be amended to read: >> >> The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, >> numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted since the >> last distribution. This starts each such proposal's prescribed voting >> period, which lasts 24 hours. >> >> [Proposal comment: Fewer distributions and overlapping voting periods >> = more votes?] FOR > 334 (omd): >> I propose that Rules 217 (game custom, spirit of the game) be made >> immutable. AGAINST > 335 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 213 (judgements) be made immutable. AGAINST > 336 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 210 (timing of rule changes) be made immutable. AGAINST > 337 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 102 (initial mutability) be made mutable (because >> I would like to repeal it). FOR > 338 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 111 (conflict between mutable and immutable rules) >> be made mutable (ditto, I would like to make numerical precedence >> apply to all conflicts). FOR > 339 (omd): >> I propose that Rule 109 be made mutable (because I would like to make >> rule numbers stable rather than changing after every amendment). AGAINST > 340 (Steve): >> Enact a new Rule which reads: >> >> Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish >> the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. AGAINST > 341 (scshunt): >> I propose the following rule: >> >> At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the >> most points wins the game. In the event of a tie, the tied player who >> most recently had more points than each other tied player wins. AGAINST
