[Nomic]Proposals 301-310

[pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk]

Duncan Richer wrote:
>Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery
>Why shouldn't the speaker vote?
>
>Transmute Rule 102

>Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery
>Immutability considered harmful
>
>Transmute Rule 104

I'm against both these proposals because I think they are too sweeping.
We should defer such significant changes to the rule set until
we've worked with the current rules for a while and have a better idea of
their strengths and weaknesses. Evolution, not revolution.

>Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery
>More flexibility in proposal success
>
>Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified
>elsewhere in the rules the'.

This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word
'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one,
the second one, or both?

>Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery
>Quick Start

>The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the
>legal votes cast on it.

I think this also falls in the "too drastic" category.

>Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery
>Lets have some property to play with

>Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic
>miles of land.
>
>The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules.

Given that you haven't defined "land", this proposal could be construed
as bringing the rule set into conflict with English law. Should we assume
that we're playing the game in a parallel universe, or should we explicitly
talk about "land on chiark"?

>Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery
[...]
>If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the
>Speaker must choose one for them.

 This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in
proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote
for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want
to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to
proposals currently under discussion?

>Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery
>What week is it?

>For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am
>BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. "

Do you really want to use BST rather than GMT0BST or similar?

Peter Maydell