Page 17 of 38
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:18 am
by Ircher
Up to date as of post
399.
1.
Proposal 378
(
379) by Ircher: Amend rule 112 to read, "Mutable rules may be transmuted to immutable rules by a supermajority."
Yea -
Ircher,
logan5123,
StrangerCoug
Nay -
Not Voting - Allomancer, Jake the Wolfie
This requires unanimous consent.
2.
Proposal 379
(
379,
388) by Ircher: Players may exchange all of the following cards at once: Two of Clubs, Three of Diamonds, Five of Hearts, and Seven of Spades for a single vote token.
Yea -
Ircher,
StrangerCoug
Nay -
logan5123
Not Voting - Allomancer, Jake the Wolfie
3.
Proposal 381
(
381,
392) by logan5123: Motions may be extended with a majority vote. Extending a motion sets the countdown to a different amount than originally stated. The time of the extension is chosen in the extension request.
Yea -
logan5123
Nay -
Ircher
Not Voting - Allomancer, StrangerCoug, Jake the Wolfie
4.
Proposal 383
(
381) by logan5123: All players found to have violated rule 323, and their alternate accounts, are to be removed from the game. Players removed via this rule cannot rejoin under any account.
Yea -
logan5123
Nay -
StrangerCoug
Abstain -
Ircher
Not Voting - Allomancer, Jake the Wolfie
5.
Proposal 384
(
381) by logan5123: Transmute 360 to immutable.
Yea -
logan5123,
Ircher,
StrangerCoug
Nay -
Not Voting - Allomancer, StrangerCoug, Jake the Wolfie
This requires unanimous consent.
6.
Proposal 385
(
393) by logan5123: Amend 315: Unless otherwise specified, all immutable rules require a supermajority of active votes to be amended.
Yea -
logan5123
Nay -
Not Voting - Ircher, Allomancer, StrangerCoug, Jake the Wolfie
This requires unanimous consent.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:41 am
by Allomancer
VOTE: Nay 378
VOTE: Yea 379
VOTE: Yea 381
VOTE: Yea 383
VOTE: Nay 384
VOTE: Nay 385
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:08 am
by StrangerCoug
VOTE: Abstain 381
VOTE: Nay 385 It's already dead because of Allomancer, but it was one I was strongly against anyway.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:11 am
by logan5123
allo killing like 5 proposals in a single post is a mood
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:37 am
by Jake The Wolfie
Proposal 386:
A player who duels someone who cannot afford to decline loses 5 reputation for beating up the poor.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:51 am
by Ircher
VOTE: Nay 386
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:57 am
by Allomancer
VOTE: Nay 386
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:03 am
by StrangerCoug
VOTE: Abstain 386 Let me think about it.
Proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Any person may create a party, and any person may join or leave a party at any time by bolding words to that effect. A player can be a member of only one party at a time. A party must consist at all times of at least one person—if all members leave a party, it is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:06 am
by StrangerCoug
Actually, let me clarify a couple things.
Amended proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Any person may create a party, and any person may join or leave a party at any time by bolding words to that effect. A player creating a party joins it automatically. A player can be a member of only one party at a time—a player who joins a party while already in a party automatically leaves their old party. A party must consist at all times of at least one person—if all members leave a party, it is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:07 am
by Allomancer
VOTE: Nay 387
If you want to create a party, just use a contract.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:11 am
by StrangerCoug
Not exactly sure of the benefits of a contract there except to agree on a party platform. Could you elaborate a bit on your reasoning?
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:15 am
by Ircher
378 and 384 fail. 379 passes.
VOTE: Yea 387
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:19 am
by Ircher
I actually would prefer that parties require at least two people. I have a change in mind that could incorporate parties, but it needs parties to consist of two or more people.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:49 am
by StrangerCoug
How about this, then?
Amended proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Two or more people may form a party by making a contract in accordance with rule 355, as amended hereafter. Each party must have a distinct name. The signatories of said contract are considered the members of the party. A player can be a member of only one party at a time. A party must consist at all times of at least two people—a party with fewer than two members is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:01 am
by Allomancer
VOTE: Nay 387
All the details this establishes could just be filled out by the contract itself.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:04 am
by Ircher
VOTE: Yea 387
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:58 am
by Jake The Wolfie
VOTE: Nay 387
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:00 pm
by Jake The Wolfie
Decline Duel
I am by far the most hated person. You could probably run me dry of my reputation and coins by duels alone.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:14 pm
by Ircher
Duel: Allomancer
Let's have a duel that's at least semi-interesting.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:29 pm
by Allomancer
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:46 pm
by Jake The Wolfie
I don't know which of you I most least unhate the most
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:41 pm
by logan5123
Ah, kingmaker.
Sorry, I missed this, but this is how the world works.
VOTE: YEA 387
388: More than one president cannot be nominated in a party. Parties must vote on a president. Parties individually decide how they vote on presidential nominees.
whistles in not political
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:56 pm
by logan5123
probably worded that wrong, going to bed though so tell me later
bye
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:05 am
by Allomancer
VOTE: Nay 388
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:02 am
by StrangerCoug
VOTE: Yea 388
VOTE: Ircher to win the duel