[Nomic]Draft Proposals:

[Mike Pitt]

I'm not sure whether I prefer these to mine, but the proposal is certainly
easier to read.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>  (a) The Unique Title may only be acquired or lost as described in this rule

Urgle.  Or elsewhere in the rules surely? This is just waiting for a rule
to overrule it leading to all sorts of trouble... Lets nobble it quickly.
s/in this rule/in the Rules and by game custom/

>  (c) The holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it
>      clear that the holder wishes to resign their Post. In this case the
>      holder loses the Unique Title.

What if we wish to have "non-resignable posts"?

>  (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose
>      the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may
>      be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules.

(OK, but I think this makes my comment about (a) above *more* important)

Also do we need to specify that they lose the duties/privileges of the
Post at this point? Probably not, but I'm not sure.

>  (f) Any Voter may then nominate themselves for a Post by emailing the 
>      Speaker and making their intention clear.

Maybe s/./, unless another nomination procedure is specified by the
Rules for that Post./?

>  (g) Two days after the Speaker first requested nominations, the Speaker
>      should distribute a list of all nominees for the Post. This is
>      known as Calling an Election.
>  (h) During the three days after the Election is called, Voters may
>      email the Speaker to vote for exactly one of the nominees.

s/Election is called/Calling an Election/ ?

I think making the two periods equal might be a good idea -- 3 days means
if it happens at 7pm on Friday those who don't check email over the
weekend are not too badly disadvantaged. (I guess thats why it was chosen
all over the place originally... ;-)

>  (i) At the end of the three days, or when all Voters have voted, 
>      the nominee with the most votes acquires the Unique Title and
>      becomes the new holder of the Post.
>      If two or more nominees achieved an equal number of votes, then
>      the Speaker should cast a vote to break the tie.
> ===endit===

s/Post/Elected Post/ -- we may wish to have other sorts of Posts? (Speaker
appointed say?)

> This allows:
>  * other rules to define when a player is Hounded Out Of Office
>    (eg if they go to Coventry for more than 2 weeks without resigning 
>    first)

Point.  I sort of woolily thought of imposing resignation.

>  * other rules to define Posts [such as the Justices] and also to
>    associate useful things like rights and responsibilities with 
>    those Posts.

That why I moved to Elected Posts following Duncan's comments -- it seems
people don't want an elected judiciary of 4. :-)

> Any thoughts? Do we want to impose a penalty for being Hounded
> Out Of Office?

Not in this rule.  Other rules may wish to do so depending on the post.

> I agree with Slakko that we don't want to restrict judging to only 
> four people.

Fair enough.

What do other people think about the two proposals. I probably think that
pm215's proposal is more solid.

I still think we need some concept of Conflict of Interest, including the
corrections made by "00:00:a4:00:06:04" do people think this is a good
idea?

-- 
Mike Pitt                               <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
"I now find myself in the position of having to apologise to ice-cubes
everywhere. I'm sorry. I didn't know. It won't happen again."   Vivek D.