Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Excal]

Maybe, all I know is that I didn't care one way or the other, and that extra ten points looked awfully nice.

[AndrewRogue]

I'll have a proposal tomorrrow. Sorry. Been in Seattle.

[AndrewRogue]

Since we should be able to pass it now.


Proposal 308 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

[EvilTom]

So it's just 304 again?

[AndrewRogue]

Unless people have objections, yep. I thought it was a perfectly fine amendment. If people disagree, let me know, and I'll start working to make concessions.

[Carthrat]

Discussion phase begins. Voting begins in 48 hours.

[Excal]

I am totally down with 304 coming up again.  Count me in.

[Hunter Sopko]

Up for it too. Let's not point grab and have this not pass >.>

[EvilTom]

I was up for it the first time around.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

I'm, of course, in.

[Carthrat]

Voting phase now begins! Send 'em in.

308 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

[Carthrat]

Voting's finished!

<-->

308 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

1. AndrewRogue - Yea
2. EvilTom - Yes
3. Excal - Yea
4. Jo'ou Ranbu - Yea
5. Sopko - Yea
6. VerySlightlyMad - Nay

The proposal was PASSED!
<->

Nomic -- Turn Nine

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: 9
2. EvilTom: 11
3. Excal: 12
4. Jo'ou Ranbu: 11
5. Sopko: 15
6. VerySlightlyMad: 18


It is EvilTom's turn! Please propose a change to the rules! Your rule-change number is 309.

[EvilTom]

VSM is a bum.

Proposal 309

302. Repeal rule 204

---

Voting no for points is lame.
Let's not encourage people to be bums >.>

[EvilTom]

309* obviously.

[Carthrat]

Discussion phase, 48 hours, GO

[Excal]

Ah, good.  I wasn't sure if I was going to want to propose this rule, but I think this is a good time for it to be brought up.

I think it would be healthier for the game if, instead of repealing 204, we amended it.  Add on the clause that anyone, save for the originator, voting for a failed measure be given 10 points. 

Not only does that give an incentive for voting for proposals, it will also hasten the end of the game.  After all, I'm sure we don't want some boring game where you can only get points once every three or so weeks and we need a good seven or so cycles at least in order to achieve that.

[EvilTom]

Wouldn't that encourage everyone (except the originator) to vote "no" to every single proposal?

[Excal]

Let me rephrase in slightly more precise terminology.

Voting YES on a measure that fails to pass gets you 10 points.  Voting NO on a measure that passes gets you 10 points.

That is the version of 204 I want to exist.

[EvilTom]

Interesting. What's your reasoning behind 'points yes for fail and no for pass'?

[Excal]

It provides those who are angling for points an incentive to vote for a failing measure, just as it provides a reason to vote against a passing one.  It also promotes a guessing game for those who find interest in the metagame as such, and finally, it speeds the game up rather than slowing it down by introducing a measure which guarantees that there will be points handed out in every round and that everyone has something to gain, instead of just the person whose turn it is.

[EvilTom]

It provides those who are angling for points an incentive to vote for a failing measure, just as it provides a reason to vote against a passing one. 

That's really the part I don't like so much. It means that people are voting on meta rather than the merit of the proposal.
Then again, things have been stagnating, maybe we should shake them up?
Can I get some opinions from everyone else, especially on Excal's modification?

[Hunter Sopko]

I'm for it. There are some silly things that could get passed to make the game more interesting or, dare I say, fun. This could very well make them more likely to happen.

[Excal]

Tom, I'd just like to point out, that we've seen the -10 rule in effect for two proposals.  It sunk one where the swing votes didn't really care whether or not it passed, and when a proposal came up that people felt should pass, the ten bonus points were not considered enough of an incentive to change the vote from what it was previously.

So no, I'm not worried that the meta will take away from the merits of the proposals when those merits are obvious and necessary.

[EvilTom]

That's a good point. Okay, I'll go with Excal's idea. Hopefully it should spice up the game.

[Veryslightlymad]

Meh. I got mine.

^_^