Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Excal]

In large part, because your rule doesn't do much to actually accomplish the simplifying of the baseline.  For the next two rounds the point totals won't actually be getting that high, and the math for figuring out how many points will be gained per vote won't actually be that hard.  All it takes is a calculator.

More to the point, making it easier to see what's needed in order to secure victory will actually make it harder to win in your scenario, as you're suggesting that no one will vote for someone else to win.  This means that a win will come about from someone being enticed to take a gamble on some bad math, or on forgetting a rule that's in play, so something else of that nature.  This means that complexity and the management of it is the key to victory.  All you do in simplifying things is make it easier to deny victory and close loopholes that will allow victory to occur.

[Carthrat]

Discussion phase has 28 hours remaining.

Friendly hint: To stay true to the spirit of the game, the GM advises that ballots will be conducted in secrecy, via PM. Results will be published after the fact. No waiting to see what everyone else actually votes before doing it yourself!

[Excal]

Dangit, Rat.  Now I gotta think of a new rule to propose.  Oh, by the by, do we know if the ballot will remain secret, or will our votes be made public along with the results?

[Carthrat]

They won't remain secret, I'll publish who voted what afterwards. This isn't really covered by the rules, so if you wanna do something about it feel free? >_>

[Excal]

Well, it's Nomic.  Everything can be changed.  But, yeah, it's nice to know the defaults.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

The main disadvantage to this streamlining method, to me, in the end, is mostly that it flattens the gains. A fixed rate for the achievements may be simple and easy, but the variable tangibles that allow for higher or lower scores for an accomplishment appeal to me in a competitive sense, since it also means that the player needs to work more for a good score instead of getting a flat amount regardless of the degree of success of the rule - as long as it passes. The method applied so far is still simple enough and accounts for those degrees, so, if we're changing it, I'd like to see it also factor those tangibles. And the very fact that the scoring system ideally should account for those same tangibles means that it can only be so simple.

[EvilTom]

I like the idea of less maths.

I liked that idea where you get a point for every vote you get, and maybe a bonus if your thing passes.

Can someone with more maths than me balance it?

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Hm. Lemme try my hand at something simple for a theoretical alternative.

*Looks at Andrew's 15 baseline.*

Honestly, I find 15 points a bit high, so let's make it 10.

You get a base 10 points for passing a new rule. Bonuses apply for fulfilling a few conditions, which are open to suggestion. For every vote past the minimum majority the proposed ruling gets, the rule's proposer gains an extra point. If the ruling passes unanimously, the proposer gains 15 points instead of 10. Since there are seven players, this is higher than if the bonuses were applied entirely linearly, rewarding a player for getting an unanimous vote.

Furthermore, I believe giving smaller-time bonuses for the voters on the war for getting a law to pass or fail should also take place. For each vote past the minimum majority gotten by the ruling either way, a bonus of 1 point will be applied to the voters who supported the victorious decision, capping off at +3. (So, if a ruling is declined by a 5-2 margin, the five voters who went against the ruling gain one point. If a ruling is accepted by a 6-1 margin, the voters who supported it gain two points). These bonuses do -not- stack with the bonuses given to the rule proposer, however, and no bonuses are given for a minimum majority, obviously.

I was also considering further bonuses and possible penalties for more esoteric factors, like argument quality and something fancier. But I'd like to get a word from the Judgerat for the plausibility of that.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Double-post! Anyhow, just reiterating that this is just a somewhat haphazardly cropped up alternative, and that I don't really have much place arguing the defense of this system, since it's Andy's turn to make a proposal anyway. I'd edit the former post to add the disclaimer, but since I don't -think- Rat specified in one way or another if you can edit your post, I preferred to play on the safe side. Any additions and complaints are welcome.

[AndrewRogue]

I've decided I'm going to stick to my original guns. The best I will offer is my compromise, which puts me behind in terms of potential points and flattens out the curve otherwise.

As it stands, frankly, I don't think I can convince Excal of making a change to this system, and making a more nuanced/complex point system defeats the entire purpose of my suggested change. At this juncture, I feel simplicity in the points system is far more important. The fact is that, at this point, we have no idea how the game will actually unfold: what sort of votes will prove popular, what rule changes are useful and how we approach the game.

Frankly, given the nature of the game, I feel that the point system is actually relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, due to the ability of players to constantly adjust the goal posts and the like. By the time we get nearer endgame, I can only imagine that the actual method of winning will be almost entirely unlike how it was originally envisioned.

To put it simply, I feel that change to the system is likely to occur eventually regardless of how things unfold at this point. As it is, I feel the point system obfuscates matters too much, which will lead to people getting hung up on math, rather than testing the limits of the game system itself. With a simplified and linear system, we won't need to fear any oddities for these first few rounds and are free to game the system and test our limits.

*shrugs*

Hell, if it doesn't work out, then we can always just go ahead and use the rules to reset the gamestate and fix things up. That's the magic of the game.

[Carthrat]

Only one and a half hours remaining remaining until voting begins!

[EvilTom]

So, the current proposal is the one originally outlined in your first post then Andy? Not going with any of the modifications? Just a plain-old flat rate of 15 for a pass?

[AndrewRogue]

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2226.msg38408#msg38408

As per that post.

Idly, I will also pass the following reminder along. The other silliness about a scaling system at this point is that we are, currently, bound to unaniomous votes. So keep that in mind. Unless we change it, a sliding scale isn't going to matter for a while. And, once it does, it is the perfect opportunity for someone else to chime in and alter the rules to better fit the situation.

[Carthrat]

Time's up!

Voting now begins. There isn't any restriction on chatting during the voting phase. Votes are to be submitted to me via PM. This phase will last until everyone has voted.

<->

The proposal is an amendment, and was produced as thus.

301. During the turn resolution stated in Mutable Rule 202, the following text is added at the end of (4): Once points have been awarded in this fashion once, all text following (4) will be replaced by the following: If the new rule is passed by a favorable majority, the player whose turn it is may add 15 points to their score.

[AndrewRogue]

It is so quiet, ya'll. ;_;

[Carthrat]

Voting's finished!

<-->

301. During the turn resolution stated in Mutable Rule 202, the following text is added at the end of (4): Once points have been awarded in this fashion once, all text following (4) will be replaced by the following: If the new rule is passed by a favorable majority, the player whose turn it is may add 15 points to their score.

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

The proposal was REJECTED.

<->

Nomic -- Turn Two

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -7
2. EvilTom: 0
3. Excal: 0
4. Jo'ou Ranbu: 0
5. Sopko: 0
6. Smodge: 0
7. VerySlightlyMad: 0

It is EvilTom's turn! Please propose a change to the rules! Your rule-change number is 302.

[EvilTom]

Proposal 302

302. Repeal rule 206

---------------------------------

Simple; I was shocked when I realised Andy was on negative 7 points. That's harsh.
You shouldn't lose points for having a proposal rejected, considering that we need a unanimous agreement for a while yet (which is pretty hard).
Also, the prospect of losing points means people will be less adventurous with proposals (for fear of losing points).

Removing this rule means that you can make proposals in the future without having to worry about losing points if it doesn't pass. And it only takes one vote against for it to fail.
Note: I get no unfair advantage out of this rule being passed. If it passes, it doesn't affect me. If it fails, then everyone continues to lose up to 10 points each turn (myself included). But if you pass this rule, then you might need to take advantage of it on your next turn!

Summary: removing the punishment of the player who proposed a failed rule; encourages more interesting proposals.

(And it's one less bit of maths in calculating the score yay)

[Carthrat]

Discussion phase now begins. Discussion phase will end in 48 hours, after which voting will commence. EvilTom may amend his proposal during this time.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Hm. Do you have any alternative solutions for point penalties in that case, Tom? Or a good enough defense for why we shouldn't have any penalties? I'm all ears, and I like the idea short-hand, but I'm not too terribly keen on the idea of having no point penalties at all as of now.

[QuietRain]

*punts Tom*  Now I have to think of a different one.  Darn you.

Anyway, I'm frankly all for this.  When we get down to the end of the game and someone is close to winning, that's a blatant Eternal Game Loop waiting to happen.  You don't want someone to win, just vote down their suggestion and *pop* not only don't they win (which would be fine enough as a result by itself), but you put them even further than when their turn started.   Frankly, less maths is good, this game has freaking too much math as it is.

If we just can't stand not kicking someone when they're down, maybe only penalizing them when they're unanimously rejected (well, except for the nominator themselves, of course, be silly to propose a rule and then vote against it yourself)?

[Veryslightlymad]

I'm all for this suggestion. I will vote for it as written.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Eh, I dunno. What I don't like is having the point penalty process being attached to the approval or denial of a proposal. I like the idea that we can be penalized for poor measures - encouraging quality play and all that, even though I'm no quality player myself =P. The main issue is that the point penalty being attached exactly to the part of the game that makes things mobile and fluid - even worse, -exclusively- that part? Yeah, not so right with me. I'm tending towards approving that measure myself, but I'd also like to see a couple possible amendments for the sake of creating a few new conditions either way.

[EvilTom]

The way I see it, if your proposal sucks then it doesn't pass, so you don't get as many points as everyone else. That's an inbuilt penalty there.
The voting system is quality control.
I'm not sure why we need point penalties on top of that; if nobody but the proposer votes, they'll get... 1 point? The maths escapes me.

That said, what kinds of changes would you like to see to this rule to make it better? I'm open to suggestions.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Mostly, I'm just proposing that point penalties should come from somewhere. Which is where a sliding scale would be useful. On the other hand, the sliding scale idea would probably have to be implemented later, since the need for an unanimous victory entirely crushes the possibility under its heels. I'd like to see some sort of point penalties applied for the sake of things being more mixed up than simply having a static build-up, I just don't agree with the penalties being applied to the approval or dismissal of a measure. Which is to say we'll need to implement a later ruling, since this one... honestly doesn't need to deal with more than it already deals. It's simple, elegant and works.

What I'm saying, mainly, is that the point penalties won't be a bridge entirely crossed in -this- ruling, mostly. But it looks fine as is, unless someone wants to correct me.

[AndrewRogue]

I'm gonna be frank.

Unless you include something to specifically benefit me at this juncture, I'm gonna vote it down, plain and simple.