I propose a new ruleset. Proposition 2: Ruleset determining the creation of new rules. 2.1 New propositions will be closed for voting when they have been voted upon by 3/4 of the number of users following the #hubnomic tag. 2.2 A simple majority is required for rules to be approved, based on the number of votes a proposal receives. 2.3 Rules proposed as sets must be approved in their entirety, votes may not be cast on a subset of the proposed set. 2.4 Rulesets must be modified as sets, including transmutation, amendment, and repeal. 2.5 This ruleset applies to itself and all previously proposed rules and rulesets.
Proposition 2.6: A poster proposing a proposition is implicitly voting for the proposition being proposed.
To rephrase: the act of proposing a proposition is also a vote towards said proposition unless otherwise stated by the poster.
2.1 This may be difficult given math. It's possible the number of votes may not be presented in an exact 3 out of 4 fashion, there may be 5 of 7, and other percentages. This proposed sub ruleset should probably be revised. Also, it doesn't specify a given timeframe, and doesn't take into account growth and attrition of followers over a timeframe. 2.2 I'm concerned about the wording. It introduces needless complexity, which can be exploited and cause unforeseen complications. Would prefer, "Rules that receive the most votes shall be approved," but even then more specificity is needed. 2.3 Agree. In that while it may make instinctive sense to focus on one aspect of a complicated ruleset and follow through on that, discarding the previous, this tends to introduce unwanted disarray into the system. Logic traffic jams. 2.4 Can neither agree nor disagree, as I feel the words "rulesets", "modified", "sets", "transmutation", "amendent" and "repeal" should be explicitly defined. 2.5 How can this ruleset apply to previously proposed rules and rulesets...if the prior state of the system accepted different governing protocols, would this then mean anytime a substantial change is made to current rules, those then need to be retroactive, and everything in recorded annals needs to be changed? Yes, I've worked for law firms.
Makes sense. Also, some references to the game I've read on various websites mention turns, as though it's not just a madhouse of people proposing and voting but that they take turns proposing rules and the rules are voted on before new rules can be proposed. But perhaps that is just a lingering mechanic from a time when the game was played via email/message board rather than a more dynamic environment such as hubski.
2.1: Support 2.2: Support 2.3: Oppose because there is no way to check for contradictory rules within the ruleset. 2.4: Support once 2.3 can check for contradictory rules within the ruleset. 2.5: Support
Seconded. Rulesets should be voted upon as individual rules.