|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-21-10
 | | al wazir: Here are the rules of LEX:
1. Any number can play.
2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.
3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule. 4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants. |
|
May-21-10
| | al wazir: In accordance with the rules posted above, I play first. I propose the following additional rule: "5. <al wazir> is appointed Chairman. In the event of a dispute, he adjudicates and his ruling is decisive." I vote "Yes." |
|
| May-21-10 | | Shams: On the above resolution I vote "No."
I suggest no further votes take place until the number of participants is settled. |
|
| May-21-10 | | Shams: I further suggest the number of participants be at least four and no more than six, for the first iteration at least. |
|
| May-21-10 | | SamAtoms1980: <Shams: I further suggest the number of participants be at least four and no more than six, for the first iteration at least.> I concur. |
|
| May-21-10 | | AgentRgent: According to Rule #2, <I> go first... ;-) |
|
| May-21-10 | | Shams: <OCF> get your butt in here... |
|
May-21-10
| | al wazir: In view of <AgentRgent>'s quibble, I will withdraw my proposed addition to the rules for now, although its sensibility and practicality are overwhelmingly obvious. I see this crowd isn't going to be easy to push around. |
|
May-21-10
 | | OhioChessFan: I would have abstained. |
|
| May-21-10 | | Shams: Ok, that's five. Maybe we get an open position if we play with five people, and a closed maneuvering game with an even number of players? I could go either way, but we should lock it up soon. |
|
| May-21-10 | | SamAtoms1980: I propose that we make the Three Knights (C46) America's official National Opening, and that anybody who plays the Petrov Defense (C42) within our borders is a society-subverting commie and sentence him to read the Wesley So page from cover to cover for all eternity. For the record, I vote "No." Just passing the time until we get started for real. |
|
May-21-10
| | al wazir: The rules don't say that the number of people has to be constant. More can join later. Meanwhile, I'm eager to learn why <AgentRgent> was so anxious to go first. Show us what you've got, <AR>. |
|
| May-21-10 | | Shams: <al wazir> If the number isn't constant, how do we establish a majority? |
|
May-22-10
| | al wazir: <Shams: If the number isn't constant, how do we establish a majority?> Rule #4 says "a majority of the participants." I take that to mean those participating at the time of the vote. If you have a problem with that, suggest an alternative. I've never played LEX online before. For this environment some modifications of the rules would probably be helpful. *We* make the rules. |
|
| May-22-10 | | AgentRgent: I propose:
Rule # 5: Voting on any proposal shall open only after said proposal receives a "second" from another player and shall close only when a "motion of cloture" is made and seconded by two players, neither of whom issued or seconded the original proposal. Do I hear a second? |
|
May-22-10
| | al wazir: <AgentRgent: I vote "no." The Roberts rules aren't appropriate in this forum. (That's what I meant by my previous comment.) The rest of us been cooling our heels for two days, waiting for you to come up with something. As soon as we finish voting on your proposal, I'm going to propose time limits and some changes that will clarify the voting procedure. |
|
| May-22-10 | | SamAtoms1980: <AgentRgent: I propose:
Rule # 5: Voting on any proposal shall open only after said proposal receives a "second" from another player and shall close only when a "motion of cloture" is made and seconded by two players, neither of whom issued or seconded the original proposal.> I vote "No" |
|
| May-22-10 | | AgentRgent: <al wazir: <The rest of us been cooling our heels for two days, waiting for you to come up with something.> Sorry, but the end of the school year is a rather busy time for me. <As soon as we finish voting on your proposal, I'm going to propose time limits and some changes that will clarify the voting procedure.> Currently we have no procedure for closing voting (which is what my proposal addressed) so how will we even know when voting ends on that? |
|
May-23-10
| | al wazir: If one more person votes "no," then your proposal has failed and we can move on. You see why you need a Chairman? Some people just aren't ready for self-government. |
|
| May-23-10 | | Shams: I vote no. |
|
May-23-10
| | al wazir: Three "no" votes constitute a majority of the five declared participants. <AgentRgent>'s proposed rule has failed. It's my turn now. In order to keep this forum from becoming as dilatory and dysfunctional as the U.S. Senate, I want to establish time limits for both proposing and voting. I think 24 hours is enough for each, but if others disagree I would be happy to entertain their suggestions. So I propose the following
Rule #5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed. It is now 12:08 pm EDT, 5/23/10. |
|
May-23-10
| | al wazir: Oh, and BTW, I vote "yes."
It is now 12:15 pm EDT, 5/23/10. |
|
| May-23-10 | | AgentRgent: 24 hours is insufficient time to allow for those who have other obligations than sitting around chess forums all the time. I vote No |
|
May-23-10
| | al wazir: <AgentRgent>: What do you think the time limits should be? Or are you against any time limit? |
|
| May-23-10 | | SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes" |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
