In post 0, Ircher wrote:318. The players can vote for a President. The player with the most votes on them for President becomes President.
Just realized something here. "The players can vote for a President". There is nothing to state a playing is required to vote, so at what point do we know the player with the most votes on them becomes President? (Unless a majority is reached)
Was just about to clarify that with 344! Got ninja'd twice!
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Holder of the Longest Continuous Weekly Mafiascum Post Record. 1 July 2012 - 16 Feb 2023
*It may be held by someone else if you discount the major downtime in 2012 and 2014, I'm not doing the research.
In post 252, Ircher wrote:VOTE: Nay 343 - Do we really need a Vice-President?
Also, prodding JDGA even though it isn't in the ruleset simply cuz he signed up, so he should play or formally /out
VOTE: yea:344
Do we really need a President? Do we really need this game?
Anyhow, I was thinking along the lines of if for some reason the President was no more, there was someone that would immediately step up to the plate. Also, opens up more possibilities for future.
VOTE: yea:345
As long as mods don't mind the task of more editing of dinero.
VOTE: Nay 345 --> Too much work to figure stuff non-retroactively. Making it retroactive makes it a lot easier to count. VOTE: Nay 346 --> Dineros are hard to get as is; I refuse.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
First of all, making it non-retroactive is LESS work because you only have to pay attention going forward. And Dinero are scarce, but you're shooting down a proposal that would alleviate that problem.
Holder of the Longest Continuous Weekly Mafiascum Post Record. 1 July 2012 - 16 Feb 2023
*It may be held by someone else if you discount the major downtime in 2012 and 2014, I'm not doing the research.
I'm not following. A measure passes, you look at who voted yes, and give them a Dinero at the same time you edit the new proposal into the ruleset. What do recounts have to do with anything?
If there was a Rule that said we had to sing a song whenever we proposed a rule and then that rule was amended to make singing a song against the rules under penalty of Dinero loss, you wouldn't go back and retroactively fine everyone.
The amendment wasn't retroactive. But in this case, you struck out the retroactive part, and I dont got time to determine which proposals were passed between the amendment and the enactment of the rule.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
In post 272, Haschel Cedricson wrote:If there was a Rule that said we had to sing a song whenever we proposed a rule and then that rule was amended to make singing a song against the rules under penalty of Dinero loss, you wouldn't go back and retroactively fine everyone.
And, actually, I would if it said the fee was applied retroactively.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
