Ed Murphy wrote:
iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it
voted on in a timely fashion.
... and have it adopted if popular? Not sure how to phrase the
condition, but we definitely need such a clause.
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a
Murphy wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the receive clause right after
invoke clause,
Ed Murphy wrote:
Should be covered by the receive judgement clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required). Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures
that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable,
distribution costs in general).
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in
Zefram wrote:
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite
delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and
artificially restricted distribution.
Well, during the Papyri version of
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
Finally, the clause right to have it voted on is troubling. Is
it voted on if a veto or guillotine ends the
Zefram wrote:
I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
you don't pay that cost for a first draft. At
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work
On May 7, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to
creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in
that
On 5/7/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed
on 2005-05-15.
On 18 July 2001, Murphy
10 matches
Mail list logo
