Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

TheSandBox's Journal: *ahem* 12

Journal by TheSandBox
Looking at the voting, i would say that we're not going to get a vote from all countries involved. Therefore, we're going to have to consider taking a measure of those who have voted, and if more voted than didn't, and most of those said yes, look on it as the best answer we're going to get. Any objections? This is a suggestion seeking comment, not a proposal or declaration.

-solemndragon

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

*ahem*

Comments Filter:
  • Maybe people are just approaching NS as a tamagochi of a government, they aren't interested in the whole RP aspect that some of you are seeking, perhaps we should split into two camps, one that contains the group that want to RP and the group that wants to just let the game play itself out, perhaps even form a separate region.
  • sounds good.
  • Yeah -- it's sorta lost its luster.

    One other thing I was wondering about the rules we were establishing is the issue of a quorum, i.e., what's the minimum number of people who have to vote for a vote to be "legal."

    Given the dropoff in active participation, that might be a handy thing to have.

    ....Bethanie....
    • One other thing I was wondering about the rules we were establishing is the issue of a quorum, i.e., what's the minimum number of people who have to vote for a vote to be "legal."

      That sounds like the best approach: a majority of people must vote for the vote to be valid, and a majority of them have to be voting "yes" for it to be carried.

      The alternative's also appealing to me though: require a majority of the electorate to vote for something for it to win. Yes, it makes new measures less likely to pass

      • To which I reply that if they do not vote, they consent, or don't care enough either way.

        El Jefe de Caffeinastan
        jason
        • To which I reply that if they do not vote, they consent, or don't care enough either way.

          That's the key issue: they don't consent; assuming they do means that as little as just over 25% of the population could "outvote" the other nearly 75%!

          I think, particularly for a relatively small gathering like this, the fairest system is to require a majority of the electorate: if a proposal doesn't have the support of a majority, it doesn't deserve to pass.

          • That's the key issue: they don't consent; assuming they do means that as little as just over 25% of the population could "outvote" the other nearly 75%!

            To which I reply "screw 'em". If you're not going to vote, you have implicitly said "I don't care".

  • No objections here.
  • Agrees with the movement as presented by the honorable leader of our region.
  • I'm going to have to check on my country's issues now...
  • yeah, do it. I just got my first repeat issues today, so who knows how much longer this can last without being redundant.
  • by robi2106 (464558)
    Makes sense. We have fewer than 5 objections to the rules. Those opposed to the rules can either

    1) work within the system to resolve their differences
    2)ignore the differences (this is just a game)
    3)leave the region

    Let us adopt the rules as proposed and amended, and move on to important legislation like recognizing official holidays, trade regulations, and curency.

    Or do fun stuff like propose that gravity does not exist, ban the use of the word "Ni", declare that weggggggies and wet willies and such be

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...